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

Annotations clearly mark this as read-only (readOnlyHint: true), non-destructive (destructiveHint: false), and idempotent (idempotentHint: true). The description matches these by stating it only 'shows' information without implying side effects. This fully discloses behavioral implications.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function. It includes the necessary information without verbosity, adhering to the principle 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?

While the description and annotations are clear, the absence of an output schema leaves callers unaware of the exact response structure. However, given the simplicity of the tool and its read-only, information-providing nature, the current description is mostly complete. A small gap exists in specifying the output format.

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, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. There are no parameter details to document, so the description covers all parameter semantics adequately.

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' clearly identifies the tool's purpose and output topic. It is specific and unambiguous, stating exactly what information is exposed.

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 tool has no parametersched input, so there are no usage prerequisites. Its purpose is self-evident; a version query requires no special conditions. The sibling tools (authenticate, connect) might be prerequisites, but the description does not explicitly mention them, which is acceptable for a simple query.

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