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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific action (showing versions) but doesn't explain return format or any side effects—though none are expected. It's minimally transparent beyond annotations.

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?

A single, direct sentence that fully conveys the purpose with no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 parameterless tool with no output schemathorized, the description sufficiently defines what it returns (platform and adapter versions). No additional context is needed given the simplicity and the presence of clear annotations.

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 zero parameters)Skip the schema covers 100% by having no properties. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 function: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It specifies the exact subject (MCP platform and adapter) and the action (show), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 is self-contained and implies when to use it (when you need version info). It doesn't mention alternatives or contexts, but for a simple version tool with no parameters, this is adequate. It could be improved by noting it's a read-only diagnostic, but annotations already cover that.

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