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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what versions are shown (platform and adapter). This adds value without contradicting anything. It does not discuss return format, but for a no-parameter info tool, this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's function without any waste.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the tool is trivial: no parameters, no side effects, and the description fully covers what it does. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers the return contents. For a simple version checker, this is complete.

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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds nothing about parameters (none exist), and the schema is empty, which is consistent. No additional parameter documentation is needed.

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 verb 'show' and a specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like authenticate or connect, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with toolkit_info, which might also show info. Still, the purpose is specific and self-contained.

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 tool's purpose inherently defines its usage—when you need to check versions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but in a small sibling set (authenticate, connect, marketplace), the context is clear. A mention of toolkit_info as an alternative would be a slight improvement, but not critical.

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