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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context by specifying that both MCP platform and adapter versions are returned, which goes beyond the structured annotation information.

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, clearly front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes to understanding the tool with no redundancy or unnecessary complexity.

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 zero-parameter schema and clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is shown—platform and adapter versions—while the annotations cover the safety and idempotence profile.

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, so there is no schema detail or parameter ambiguity to resolve. Baseline parameter score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics.

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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' uses a clear verb and identifies the specific resource. It is understandable but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as 'toolkit_info'.

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 description: call this when you need version information. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over possible alternatives, nor does it mention any when-not-to-use scenarios.

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