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 no extra behavioral context such as whether network access is required or if any side effects occur. It simply restates the action without enhancing the annotation-provided information, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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, clear sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it immediately scannable. Every word contributes to meaning, achieving perfect conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what it does. It mentions both 'MCP platform' and 'adapter versions,' which gives the agent enough context to anticipate the tool's output. However, it does not specify the exact response format (e.g., object vs. string), though this is a minor gap for a version-checking tool.

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 schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty properties). The description correctly omits parameter details, adhering to the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters. No additional semantic explanation is necessary or possible.

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 names the resources (platform and adapter versions), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace.

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?

While there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, the tool's purpose is straightforward and self-evident for checking versions. Sibling tools have distinct functions, and the description implicitly indicates usage when version information is needed. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is clear enough for a simple query tool.

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