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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations declare, but since the annotations are rich and the tool is simple (no side effects, no inputs), the description doesn't need to add much. It appropriately states the information returned, which is the main behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately understandable. It is perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, simple read operation), the description is complete. Annotations provide the safety and idempotency context. The description tells the agent exactly what it will get (version information), which is sufficient for invocation. No additional context is needed.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (irrelevant here). With no params, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero params is 4. The description correctly avoids mentioning any parameters, which 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info', which might also provide version information, so it misses the top score.

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 usage as a diagnostic or informational tool but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so while the purpose is clear, the context for when to prefer this tool over 'toolkit_info' is not addressed. This is a standard minimal guideline, not misleading.

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