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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety traits are covered. The description adds that it shows platform and adapter versions, which is self-explanatory. No additional behavioral context is needed for such a trivial read-only tool, so a 3 is suitable.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information. Perfectly sized for such a simple 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 tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is complete. The tool is trivial – it just displays version info. Nothing else 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 the schema is empty. Per the rules, 0 params = baseline 4. The description does not add any parameter info, but since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline is appropriate.

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 that the tool shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb 'show' with a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which is distinct from the sibling tools like 'authenticate', 'connect', and 'marketplace'.

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 the tool should be used when the user wants to know the versions of the platform and adapter. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives, though the purpose is straightforward and no alternates are needed for version information. Given the simplicity, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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