Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the detail that it shows both platform and adapter versions, which is slightly beyond what the annotations provide. But it doesn't disclose behaviors like whether it makes network calls, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. Given the annotations are strong, a score of 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a simple query tool with zero parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does (shows versions) and the annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is not explaining what the output looks like, but since there's no output schema and the tool is trivial, this is not a major issue.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, with 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug, which have different purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like toolkit_info, which might also provide version information, but the focus on 'current MCP platform and adapter versions' is clear enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you need version information), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given that there is a sibling tool 'toolkit_info' that might also return version info, the description could have mentioned that distinction. Still, the context is clear for a simple display tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.