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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it shows both platform and adapter versions, which is useful behavioral context beyond just 'safe to call'.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It contains zero fluff and completely conveys the tool's function with just 9 words.

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 such a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully communicates what the tool does. There is no missing context; the scope is entirely captured by the description.

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 schema covers all parameter semantics perfectly (100% coverage). Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; no additional description is needed.

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 the specific verb 'show' with a clear resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'). It precisely identifies what information is returned and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' which have entirely 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 description makes it obvious when to use the tool (to check version info). No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but given the trivial nature of the tool, this is not a gap. It provides clear context without needing to state 'when not to use'.

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