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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations, but because the tool has zero parameters and is a simple version query, the annotations carry the full burden. The description does not contradict the annotations, so a score of 4 is appropriate since it adds no additional context but the annotations are 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 a single sentence, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the purpose. It has zero wasted words and perfectly earns its place. This is exemplary 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 (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough to inform an agent about its function. The annotations provide the safety profile. No further details (like return format) are strictly necessary because the description clearly indicates a version display, and the output schema is not needed. It is complete for this simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain any parameters because there are none. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information, but it's not required. Thus, a score of 4 is justified.

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 uses the verb 'Show' and specifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which clearly states the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'toolkit_info' by focusing on MCP platform and adapter versions rather than general toolkit information. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage context: this is a simple informational tool to check current versions. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like 'toolkit_info'. Given the simplicity and the fact that there are sibling tools that might serve similar purposes, some guidance would be helpful, but it is not misleading.

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