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 safety profile is well-covered. The description adds that it shows versions, which is consistent. However, it doesn't specify the output format or whether it returns structured data, but for a simple version tool this is acceptable given annotations.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is concise and directly states the purpose without any fluff. The structure is optimal for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has no parameters Scott, and the annotations fully cover its safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description clearly indicates what information it provides. There is no output schema, but for a version-query tool, the expected output (version strings) is self-evident. Thus, it is complete for its intended use.

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 and the schema covers 100% of what is expected. With no parameters, there is nothing to document, and the schema's empty properties object is fully adequate. The description adds no extra parameter context because none exist.

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 clearly states the tool's function: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and explicitly names the objects (platform and adapter versions), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Being a no-parameter tool, there are no usage instructions needed. The description inherently signals when to use it (when version info is required), and there are no prerequisites or special conditions to mention. The tool's self-explanatory nature fully covers usage guidance.

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