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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it reports both platform and adapter versions, which clarifies the scope beyond just the tool name. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 with no wasted words. It states the exact functionality upfront and does not repeat information already present in the annotations or schema.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully conveys its purpose and the annotations cover safety behaviors. An agent has enough information to correctly select and invoke this tool without any missing critical details.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the schema is fully self-sufficient and there is nothing for the description to add. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not misrepresent or omit any parameter details.

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 the specific verb 'show' with a precise resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace, which have entirely different purposes.

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 that the tool should be used to check runtime versions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusion conditions. For a simple version-info tool, the intended usage is fairly obvious, but explicit guidance is absent.

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