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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description aligns with these. No additional behavioral context (e.g., network access, caching) is provided beyond what annotations state, but given the low risk and annotation coverage, it meets the baseline with no contradictions.

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 ('Show') and clearly states the resource. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 trivial complexity of a version-display tool, the description is sufficient. There is no output schema, but the return value is predictable for the agent. Annotations and the simple nature of the tool cover safety and idempotency, so 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, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details, and there is no missing semantic information. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for no parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and a precise resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is unambiguous and immediately clear what the tool does, distinguishing it from siblings like 'toolkit_info' and 'report_bug'.

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 is self-explanatory for a version-information tool but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., 'toolkit_info'). There is no exclusion guidance or alternative tools named, but the simplicity of the tool makes the implied usage acceptable.

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