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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it reports platform and adapter versions, which is consistent with these hints. It adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., no network or side effects), but the tool is trivial and annotations carry the burden.

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, complete sentence that directly states the action and output. No fluff or redundancy. Perfectly concise.

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?

The tool is extremely simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully covers what the tool does. No additional context is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 nothing to explain. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0-parameter tools. The description correctly omits any param detail.

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 shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('version'), and is unambiguous given the sibling tools (e.g., connect, report_bug) are unrelated.

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 is self-explanatory; it is for retrieving version information. There are no alternatives or complex decision points, so explicit 'when to use' guidance is unnecessary. However, it doesn't mention any context like 'run when diagnosing compatibility,' but the simplicity makes this acceptable.

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