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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the subject matter (platform and adapter versions) but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like return format, potential errors, or lack of side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and target, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, read-only, idempotent), the description is mostly complete. It doesn't explicitly describe the return value format, but the intention is obvious for a version-info tool. A score of 4 reflects the minor gap in return representation.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable.

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 identifies the exact resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 purpose implies this tool should be used when version information is needed, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives or any exclusions. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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