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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., version format, frequency of updates) beyond repeating the read-only nature, so it only meets the baseline for annotation-bearing tools.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and subject. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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?

The tool is extremely simple (no parameters, no output schema), and the description, combined with thorough annotations, fully covers what the agent needs to know. No additional context is required for correct invocation.

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 (no properties), there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any misleading information, so this score is appropriate.

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 clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), unambiguously distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug. It leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 implicitly defines when to use it (to check versions), and no alternatives are suggested. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, but given the trivial nature of the tool and the sibling set, this is adequate.

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