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 covered. The description adds that the tool reports platform and adapter versions, but no additional behavioral context (e.g., network usage, exact output structure) is disclosed. This aligns with the annotation-grounded baseline.

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, front-loaded sentence of 11 words. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately parseable. No fluff or repetition.

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 version tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It states exactly what information is returned (platform and adapter versions), which is sufficient without an output schema. No additional context is necessary.

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 description correctly implies no inputs are required. The schema is trivially 100% covered, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning but doesn't need to. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like toolkit_info by calling out platform and adapter versions specifically.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the use case is strongly implied by the tool name and description. For a simple version-checking tool, this implicit guidance is adequate, though it doesn't mention exclusions or relationships to overlapping siblings like toolkit_info.

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