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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds useful context by naming exactly what is shown (MCP platform and adapter versions), but it does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like output shape, network usage, or error behavior.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler or redundant content. It leaves nothing to parse and is immediately useful.

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?

With no parameters, a straightforward read-only role, and rich annotations already covering safety, this description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what information is shown, which is sufficient for selecting and invoking the 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 with 100% schema coverage, so there is limited parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description's 'MCP platform and adapter versions' helps clarify what the returned value represents.

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 names the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), so the tool's function is immediately clear. This is distinct from the sibling tools like authenticate/connect and does not feel tautological.

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 an agent should use this tool when it needs to know the current MCP platform and adapter versions. However, it does not explicitly address when to avoid it, mention alternatives, or compare it to related tools such as toolkit_info.

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