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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds the value of specifying exactly what versions are shown, which is useful beyond the schema that has no properties.

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?

Single clear sentence conveying the purpose without any fluff. Perfectly appropriate size.

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 params, no annotations beyond safety hints, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what the tool provides, though it could theoretically mention the format or granularity of versions (e.g., individual components) but that's not critical.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously, with no properties), and the description fully captures what the tool returns (version info).

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 explicitly states the tool shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or connect.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool, but as a version-inquiry tool its context is obvious. However, it doesn't mention that it's the right tool for troubleshooting version-related issues or when to prefer other diagnostics.

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