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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns version information, but goes beyond the annotations by specifying that it shows both platform and adapter versions. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether it contacts external services (openWorldHint is false, but the description doesn't clarify) or the exact format of the output. With annotations providing the core safety hints, this is acceptable but could add a bit more context.

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 sentence, highly efficient, and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it a model of conciseness.

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, clear annotations), the description provides adequate context. It tells the agent what the tool does without missing critical information. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention how the version information might be used or whether it requires any prior authentication (though 'authenticate' is a sibling tool, suggesting it might be needed). However, given the simplicity, the description is nearly complete.

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 the schema is empty. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the tool displays version information without requiring any input. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description compensates by clearly indicating what the tool does with no inputs, which is sufficient for the agent to know call expectations.

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 a specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace. Its function is obvious even without the title.

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 that this tool is used to check version information, which is appropriate when an agent might need to verify the environment or report an issue. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. Given its simplicity and clear scope, the implied context might be sufficient, but it lacks explicit guidance.

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