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 safety profile is well-covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that; it doesn't describe output format or that it might require an active connection, but the annotations carry most of the burden.

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 says exactly what the tool does with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word adds value.

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, zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete. It doesn't need to explain return values since no output schema existsholed, but it could mention what the output looks like. However, given the tool's simplicity, the information is sufficient.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema covers 100% (empty). The description does not need to explain parameters. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description doesn't detract from that.

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's purpose: to show current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and names the resources (MCP platform and adapter versions). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 when to use it (when you need version information) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. With no parameters and a clear purpose, it's adequate but lacks explicit context.

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