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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, and the description adds the specific output content ('MCP platform and adapter versions'). This is consistent and provides additional context beyond the annotations, though no detail is given about the exact return format.

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?

A single, direct sentence fully conveys the tool's purpose with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized 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?

For a no-parameter, read-only version query with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool reports (platform and adapter versions) and the safety profile is covered by annotations.

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 is 4; no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly stating what the tool does. It is distinct from siblings like authenticate or toolkit_info.

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 when version information is needed but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For a simple no-arg utility, the usage context is reasonably clear but not elaborated.

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