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

The description aligns with the provided annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), and the verb 'Show' reinforces the non-destructive nature. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects beyond what annotations already convey, which is acceptable given the annotations' completeness.

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 extremely concise and to the point, using only a single short sentence. It avoids any unnecessary details or filler, making it easy for an agent to understand the tool's primary purpose at a glance.

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?

For a simple read-only version retrieval tool, the description is complete. It states exactly what information is provided (MCP platform and adapter versions) and implies no side effects or complex behavior. No output schema is present, so the description sufficiently covers the tool's function.

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 baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since none exist, and the description itself implies that no input is required, which is consistent with its function.

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 function: retrieving current MCP platform and adapter versions. The action verb 'Show' directly indicates a read-only retrieval, and the object is well-specified, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical scenarios, or circumstances where it might be inappropriate. This lack of context could leave agents uncertain about selecting it.

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