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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (platform and adapter versions), which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent context about the output.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys all necessary information efficiently and is appropriately scoped for the tool's simplicity.

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, no output schema, and clear annotations indicating safety, this description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, and annotations cover the behavioral aspects. There is nothing missing.

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 no parameters, the schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain any parameter semantics since there are none.

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 the tool's function: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb (show) and identifies the exact resource (version information), distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect or marketplace.

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 is so self-evident that no explicit usage context is needed; there are no alternatives for retrieving versions. While it doesn't state when to use or not use the tool, the context is clear and unambiguous given the tool's simplicity.

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