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

Annotations fully declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific scope ('platform and adapter versions'), which clarifies exactly what version information is returned. Minor deduction because it doesn't mention if there's any network call or if it's purely local, but that's largely immaterial for this kind of tool.

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 sentence, no fluff, every word earns its place. Ideal length for an informational endpoint.

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?

The tool is simple, has no parameters, no output schema needed, and the description covers the purpose and return scope. The sibling tools are distinct (connect, authenticate, etc.), so there's no confusion. Nothing is 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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 parameters = baseline 4, and the description adds value by clarifying the meaning of the return value ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), covering the version output details. This justifies a 5.

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 resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a simple informational endpoint, and there's no ambiguity about what it returns.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (whenever you need version information), but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the trivial nature and the presence of sibling tools like toolkit_info and report_bug, a small note about when to prefer this over toolkit_info could push it to 5, but the context makes it evident.

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