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 tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations—only that versions are 'current', which is trivial. No additional side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits are disclosed, but none are expected for a version lookup tool.

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, direct sentence precisely states the tool's function. There is no verbosity or redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the action and subject, making it immediately understandable.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations), the description is fully sufficient. It clearly explains what the tool returns (versions) without needing to elaborate on return value structure. The tool is complete for its intended purpose.

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 takes zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to the rubric, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. This is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 clear verb 'show' with a specific resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. This unambiguously defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which perform actions rather than retrieve information.

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 implies usage (checking version info) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or under what conditions. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. While there are no obvious alternative tools for this function, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to invoke it.

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