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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the specific content (platform and adapter versions) but no further behavioral traits (e.g., no network calls, response shape). This meets the baseline for annotation-supported tools without adding extra context.

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 with no redundant words or repetition. It is perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

A simple tool with no parameters, full annotation coverage, and clear purpose. The description fully explains what the tool does, and no output schema is necessary for a read-only version query. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no further context 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the description adds nothing about parameters because none exist. According to the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It fully defines the tool's scope and is distinct from all sibling tools, which cover authentication, connection, marketplace, bug reporting, and EU sanctions.

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 use when version information is needed, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Since none of the sibling tools overlap with version display, the context is implicitly clear, but the lack of explicit direction prevents a higher score.

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