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 known. The description adds specificity beyond annotations by clarifying exactly what versions are shown (platform and adapter), providing useful context. No contradictions exist.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action ('Show') and specifies the exact content. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 informational tool with full annotation coverage, the description is complete. It fully communicates the tool's function without needing to explain return values or optional behaviors, as none exist.

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 input schema has zero properties, and the description adds no parameter details—correctly so, since there are no parameters to document. With 0 params, baseline is 4, as there is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly states the resource (MCP platform and adapter versions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which have 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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident for a version-reporting utility. Usage is implied (when you need the current MCP platform/adapter versions), but no exclusions or alternatives are provided, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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