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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description aligns with these (nothing suggests side effects). It does not add extra context beyond the annotations, but given the low bar for tools with annotations, the transparency is adequate.

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, containing only the essential verb and object. It avoids any redundant phrasing or unnecessary details, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 version-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It implies the return value (version info) without needing explicit detail. The lack of an explicit return format is not a significant gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so the description does not need to describe any. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly does not imply any inputs. No additional information is 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 clearly states the tool's function: to show MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses the specific verb 'Show' and the resource is unambiguous. There are no sibling tools provided for comparison, but the purpose is self-evident.

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 this tool is used to retrieve version information, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from potential alternatives (e.g., a tool that shows detailed configuration). Since it is a simple, zero-parameter read-only operation, the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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