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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and idempotent, which the description aligns with by stating 'show.' While the description doesn't add extra details like output format, the behavior is predictable, and the annotations cover safety. It adds no contradictions and meets the baseline for a non-destructive operation.

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, clear sentence that conveys all necessary information without fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is perfectly minimal.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple output, this description is complete. The lack of an output schema is not an issue because the purpose is straightforward, and the annotations cover the behavioral context. No additional information is needed.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there's no room for confusion. The baseline of 4 applies here since there are no parameters to document, and the description correctly indicates the tool takes no input.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing solely on version information, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 the tool is for checking versions but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide context about when it's appropriate. However, for a simple version lookup tool, the guidance is adequate, as no exclusions or prerequisite conditions are needed.

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