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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which fully covers the safety profile (no side effects). The description adds the specific information returned (platform and adapter versions) but does not dive into output format or how to interpret versions. Since annotations are rich, 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 directly states the tool's function with no extraneous information. It is perfectly front-loaded and 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 simple, parameterless, read-only version-check tool with complete schema coverage and good annotations, the description is sufficient. The output is not described, but since there is no output schema, the agent will rely on the description to infer the return type, which is adequately hinted by 'versions'. This is not a complex tool, so completeness is high.

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 there is no hidden parameter semantics to describe. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description focuses on the operation itself, which is sufficient for a parameterless version-check tool.

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 states the specific purpose: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It is clear, uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'toolkit_info' (which likely shows toolkit metadata).

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 clearly implies the tool is for checking version information, which is a common diagnostic task. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but given the simple nature of the tool and that siblings like 'toolkit_info' indicate a potential alternative, the context is clear enough.

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