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 clear. The description adds the specific scope (MCP platform and adapter versions) but doesn't disclose behavior beyond that, such as whether it returns structured JSON or what 'adapter' exactly refers to. Given the annotations cover the key behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate — it adds some context but not rich detail.

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 extremely concise — a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse. It fully deserves a 5 for appropriate sizing.

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 simple: no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations that cover safety and idempotency. The description provides the essential context (what versions are shown) and is complete enough for an agent to understand the purpose. It doesn't need more detail about return format because there's no output schema, but the version names are clear. A 4 is justified given the low complexity and good 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter meaning. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing undocumented. According to the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4, and the description correctly implies no input is needed, so it earns a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It specifies the verb 'show' and the resource (versions), and it is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect. A slight, but not fatal, gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention what is NOT shown (e.g., toolkit-specific details), but it's clear enough.

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 context: it's a read-only informational tool with no parameters, so the agent can infer it's safe to call anytime. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like toolkit_info, which might also provide version-related information. With no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, it's a minimal but acceptable guidance.

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