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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds specificity by stating it reports both 'MCP platform and adapter versions'—clarifying the exact scope of output. This adds value beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's function. There is no extraneous information, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with clear annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. It doesn't describe the return format, but without an output schema and with the tool's simple nature, this is adequate. Slightly more detail about what 'versions' includes could enhance completeness, but overall it is complete for the context.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description provides no parameter information, but none is needed since the schema is empty and the tool requires no input.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which have entirely different purposes.

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 usage for retrieving version information but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., toolkit_info, which might also provide version-related details). No exclusions or alternative hints are provided, though the unique purpose reduces ambiguity.

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