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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the word 'current' but provides minimal extra behavioral context beyond what the annotations convey, aligning with the baseline for annotated tools.

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 directly states the tool's function without any fluff, unnecessary details, or redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to understand.

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 that there is no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates that the tool returns version information. The simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no complex behavior) means this level of detail is complete for a user to know what to expect.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and per the rubric, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate when no parameter details are required.

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 explicitly states the tool shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, which is a clear and specific action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve 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 tool's use case is self-evident; it is used to retrieve version information. Since there are no similar sibling tools that return versions, no explicit alternatives are needed, and the description implicitly guides when to use it.

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