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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already inform the agent that this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but the description's statement 'Show' aligns with the annotations. No contradiction, but no extra value.

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 one concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and direct. Perfectly concise.

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 informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect: versions of platform and adapter. The annotations provide additional safety context. Nothing missing.

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 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The description adds no parameter info, but it's unnecessary. The description is sufficient.

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 purpose: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource (versions), which is clear but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings. However, sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' might have overlapping functionality, but the description is specific enough.

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 context: it's a simple informational tool for checking versions. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but given the sibling names, it's clear this is the go-to for version info. There is no exclusion guidance, but the simplicity of the tool makes it straightforward.

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