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

The description adds the detail that versions are returned for 'platform and adapter,' which provides minor context beyond the annotations' readOnly and idempotent hints. However, it does not disclose output format or potential side effects, though none are expected for a version check.

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 that is directly front-loaded with the action verb 'Show' and specific resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without any fluff.

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 version-checking tool with no parameters and safe read-only annotations, the description adequately covers the functional scope. While it could mention the output format, the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor omission, and sibling distinction is not critical.

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 the description correctly focuses on the return value rather than parameter details. With no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema provides all necessary information.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'toolkit_info' by explicitly focusing on version information, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 is self-explanatory for when to use this tool (to get version info) but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives like 'toolkit_info' or any exclusions. It relies on the obviousness of the purpose rather than spelling out use cases.

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