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

Annotations already declare the tool to be read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying it returns platform and adapter versions, which is directly relevant context. It does not introduce any contradictions and is consistent with the 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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place; there is zero 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?

For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and clean annotations, this description is completely sufficient. It fully satisfies what a user or agent needs to know to use it correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is fully covered by default. The description doesn't need to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies here, as there is nothing more to explain.

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 resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' by being a read-only informational call.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly mention when-not-to-use or name alternatives, the context is crystal clear—this is a version-checking tool. The simplicity of the operation makes explicit exclusion unnecessary, and the description sets the right expectation for when an agent would call it.

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