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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the purpose itself, such as return format or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the low added value.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It contains no unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the action, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is very simple with no parameters, no output schema, and annotations that already declare its safe read-only nature. The description adequately conveys its purpose and is complete for this level of complexity. There are no gaps that would hinder an agent's understanding.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior because there are none. It does not add any parameter-related meaning, but the lack of parameters makes this irrelevant.

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 action (show) and the resource (current MCP platform and adapter versions). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve different purposes. The verb 'show' and the object leave no ambiguity.

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—when you need to check the current platform and adapter versions—but does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not say when not to use it or mention any sibling tools, so it relies on implied context.

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