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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context that both platform and adapter versions are shown, going slightly beyond the annotations. No side effects or further behavioral details are needed for a trivial read operation.

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 directly states what the tool does without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it a model of 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. It could mention the exact return format, but that is not necessary for a simple version check, and the tool's simplicity reduces the burden on 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?

With 0 parameters, schema coverage is 100% by default, and the rubric gives a baseline of 4 for 0-param tools. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate since there are none to describe.

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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource (MCP platform and adapter versions). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' by focusing solely on version display.

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 self-evident and contextually clear for checking versions, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It earns a 4 because the use case is obvious without exclusions or alternatives being necessary.

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