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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, clearly indicating a safe read operation. The description's verb 'show' aligns with these hints, and while it doesn't detail the return format or any potential side effects, the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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, direct sentence with no filler or unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's action and subject.

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 version-check tool, the description is complete: it states what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter). There is no output schema, but for a version query that is not necessarily required, and the absence of parameters means no additional context is needed.

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, and the schema's description coverage is 100% trivially (as there are no properties). Thus, there is no need for parameter explanations; the schema and description are complete.

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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', providing an unambiguous purpose. There is no ambiguity or vagueness about what the tool does.

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 version information is needed, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or preconditions. However, given the tool's simplicity and zero parameters, its use case is self-evident, and there are no competing tools listed that would require differentiation.

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