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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description supports by indicating a non-mutating 'Show' operation. The description adds the specific scope ('MCP platform and adapter') beyond what annotations contain, though it doesn't detail side effects (none expected).

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. No waste, every word is meaningful.

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 zero-parameter, read-only version tool, the description is adequately complete. It doesn't mention return format, but no output schema exists, and for such a simple utility it's not necessary. Overall, it fits its purpose well.

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, the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 specific verb ('Show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools. It goes beyond a tautology by detailing exactly which versions are reported.

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 usage is implied by the name and description—checking versions—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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