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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds specificity about what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter) but does not describe output format or further behavior. This adds some value but not extensive context, matching a score of 3.

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 entire description is one concise, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It directly states the action and scope, earning a perfect score.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only action, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It specifies the exact information returned (MCP platform and adapter versions) and is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. 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 schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as the description adds no parameter-specific value but is not deficient.

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 what the tool does: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It specifies the verb (show), the resource (MCP platform and adapter versions), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect which have entirely different purposes.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident and there are no obvious alternatives for querying versions among siblings, so no explicit when-to-use guidance is necessary. The description provides clear context (displaying versions) without exclusions, aligning with a score of 4.

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