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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the output scope (platform and adapter versions), providing concrete behavioral information beyond what annotations convey. It doesn't mention any edge cases, but for a read-only version tool, this is adequate.

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 that front-loads the purpose with no filler. Every word contributes value.

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 low complexity (0 params, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. Annotations cover safety, making the tool sufficiently well-documented.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter info. It correctly mentions what the tool returns, which is the only relevant semantic.

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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, using specific verb 'Show' and resource 'versions'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which serve 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?

Usage is implied by the name and description – when you need to know platform/adapter versions. However, no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, though given the tool's simplicity, the implication is sufficient.

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