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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific scope (platform and adapter versions) beyond the annotations, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output format or any side effects, though none are expected. This is acceptable but not rich.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and target. It contains only essential information with no fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (no params), the absence of an output schema, and the presence of supportive annotations, the description is fully adequate. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, which is all that is needed for a version-check tool.

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 zero parameters, so the schema has no properties. The description clarifies the tool's purpose but does not need to add parameter semantics as there are none. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that baseline.

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 purpose: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb (show) and identifies the exact resource (versions), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'connect' or 'authenticate'.

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 context is clear: this is a diagnostic tool for checking versions. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but given the simple no-param nature, the usage is obvious. The description does not provide explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is self-sufficient.

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