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

Annotations already specify readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the name implies. This aligns with the baseline where annotations exist; there is no contradiction, but the description could have mentioned that no authentication is required or that it performs a network call, though none is necessary.

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 sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and object, with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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, stateless tool with no output schema, the description is entirely sufficient. It fully explains what the tool does and what the agent can expect (version information). No gaps 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?

With zero parameters, the schema is complete and the description need not explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies as per the rubric for zero-parameter tools, and the description adds no irrelevant or missing information.

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 resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'toolkit_info' which might have broader scope. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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 usage when an agent needs current version information, which is clear from context. No alternatives are mentioned, but none are needed for a simple version query. The main gap is not explicitly stating when *not* to use it (e.g., if another tool also reports versions), but this feels minor given the tool's specificity.

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