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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what version-related information is displayed, which is consistent with the annotations and no contradiction occurs.

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, precise sentence with no filler or redundancy. Despite the sibling toolkit_info tool, this is an efficient and complete description for a simple read-only version tool.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, simple purpose, and presence of sibling tools, this description is fully sufficient for correct use. The only missing element might be an explicit mention of the return format, but that is not necessary for a tool of this simplicity.

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 an empty schema, so the baseline for no-param tools is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; it also clarifies that the output concerns platform and adapter versions.

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 specific action ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This unambiguously distinguishes the tool from siblings like connect and authenticate by identifying it as a version-information tool.

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 the use case: call when you need current MCP platform/adapter version details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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