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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the specific scope ('MCP platform and adapter') but doesn't elaborate on output format or any potential constraints. With strong annotations, this is adequate.

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 front-loads the purpose without any superfluous words. It perfectly matches the tool's simplicity.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly states what the tool does, and the annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is not describing the output format, but that's acceptable given the tool's 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 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no properties). The description adds meaning by specifying what version info is shown (platform and adapter versions), which is useful beyond the empty schema.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('version'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by being solely about version retrieval, unlike 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', 'sefaz_pr_certidao_debitos_consultar', and 'toolkit_info' which serve different functions.

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 that the tool is for retrieving version information, which provides clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but given the sibling tools, it's obvious this is for checking versions, not for performing actions like authentication or reporting bugs.

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