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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description does not add behavioral context beyond that, such as return format or authentication requirements, though it does add resource scope.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the action and target without any filler. The description is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 version tool, the description is fully complete: it tells the agent exactly what information will be retrieved. No output schema exists, but the output (platform and adapter versions) is self-evident from the description.

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 the input schema is fully described (empty properties). Baseline 4 applies to no-parameter tools, and the description provides no additional parameter information because none is needed.

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 names the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace' that serve unrelated 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 (when version information is needed) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. For a simple info tool this is acceptable, but it falls short of explicit guidance.

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