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 covered. The description adds the detail that it returns both platform and adapter versions, which is useful context, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects like return format or potential dynamic values.

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, grammatically complete sentence of nine words. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted content, effectively conveying the action and target.

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, simple read-only version tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose. It explains what the tool shows (current platform and adapter versions) and is complete in the context of its low complexity.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description correctly implies no parameters are needed. With no params to explain, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no extra meaning but doesn't need to.

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 the specific verb 'show' and clearly identifies the resource: 'the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which serve entirely different functions.

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 checking version information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the simplicity and unique purpose among siblings, the implied context is clear but not explicit.

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