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 well covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but the tool is simple with no side effects. It could mention it requires no authentication or returns textual information.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'). Zero waste, perfectly concise for its purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity, no parameters, and rich annotations, the description is adequate. It could mention what type of output to expect (e.g., version strings) but the tool name and description already convey the purpose clearly. Sibling tools include toolkit_info and report_bug, which are separate, so this is complete enough.

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 the description doesn't need to explain any. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter semantics, but the absence of parameters makes this a non-issue, hence a baseline 4 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, with a specific verb ('show') and resource ('versions'). It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate and marketplace, though it could be more explicit about what 'MCP platform and adapter versions' means.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, for a version-checking tool, usage context is fairly obvious. It is implied for diagnostic or informational purposes, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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