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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it shows versions but doesn't describe return format or any potential caveats (e.g., whether both versions are always present). It adds some context but relies on annotations for safety, so a mid-score is appropriate.

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?

A single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant words or filler. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (zero parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is complete. It specifies exactly what information is shown (platform and adapter versions). No ambiguity exists that would require more detail.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate for schema coverage since it's 100% (all parameters absent are well covered). No gap.

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 is highly specific: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It clearly identifies the action (show), the object (current MCP platform and adapter versions), and the scope. This is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like toolkit_info.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool: whenever version information is needed. It doesn't mention alternatives or prerequisites, but for a zero-parameter info tool, the purpose is self-evident. Slight gap in not stating that it returns both platform and adapter versions distinctly, but that's minor.

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