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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no extra behavior details (e.g., output format), but given the trivial nature of the tool, this is acceptable. With annotations covering safety, the description does not need to repeat them.

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 precise sentence with zero redundancy. It fully conveys the tool's function in the most economical way possible.

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 zero-parameter tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It fully explains the tool's purpose without needing additional behavioral details.

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?

There are zero parameters; the schema is fully covered at 100%. With no parameters to describe, the description needs no parameter-level guidance. Baseline of 4 is appropriate given the empty schema.

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 shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which serve different purposes.

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 intended usage is obvious: call when you need version information. While not explicitly stating alternatives, the description provides clear context and there are no overlapping tools that perform the same function.

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