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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description aligns with these annotations and clarifies that it reports platform and adapter versions. It adds no risky behaviors or surprising side effects, though it does not describe the exact output shape.

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, short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It directly states the tool's purpose and requires no parsing effort.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter, read-only version query, the description is largely complete. It could optionally mention what the returned version payload looks like or distinguish itself from toolkit_info, but the core context is sufficiently covered for this low-complexity 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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description implies the tool takes no arguments. With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4; the description provides no conflicting or missing parameter information.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from general auth/connect/marketplace siblings, and the version focus is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs the current MCP or adapter version. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools like toolkit_info, and no 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions.

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