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

The description conveys that the tool only retrieves version information, implying no mutations. This is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. No side effects are mentioned, which is acceptable given the simple nature of the operation.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It front-loads the key information with no superfluous wording, making it an exemplary for a simple info 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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does. It could benefit from mentioning the exact output format (e.g., 'returns version strings'), but the name and description together are sufficient for users to understand 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 description covers all parameter-related semantics. Per the scoring rules, 0 params results in a baseline score of 4.

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, which aligns with the tool name. It is concise and unambiguous, leaving no doubt about the tool's function.

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 doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool (e.g., during troubleshooting or configuration validation). However, for a simple read-only utility, the use case is fairly self-evident from the name and description, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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