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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds no new behavioral details beyond what is already known. Since annotations cover the essentials, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides minimal additional insight.

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 with no fluff. It fully conveys the purpose in minimal words, achieving high efficiency.

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?

For a simple read-only version query, the description is complete. It specifies what information is returned (platform and adapter versions) without needing to detail return format, which is acceptable given the simplicity and lack of output schema.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and the schema confirms no parameters. No additional parameter documentation is 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 clearly states the tool shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions, which is specific and distinct from the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, sefaz_pi_cnda_consultar, toolkit_info). It uses a clear verb 'show' and identifies the resource.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but it is a simple version-check operation. The intended context (e.g., when user asks for platform or adapter versions) is implied, though no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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