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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as output format or whether it requires any setup, but it does not contradict annotations either.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple informational tool.

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, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It indicates the tool provides version information, and the annotations cover safety. No additional information is required for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly notes that it shows versions, which is sufficient given the parameterless nature. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description meets that baseline without adding unnecessary detail.

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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. It is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or marketplace, though it lacks an explicit comparison.

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 it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Given the simple nature of the tool, a 3 is appropriate as the context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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