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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the specific resource (platform and adapter versions) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as potential network calls, latency, or error conditions. This is acceptable for a simple read-only tool, but no extra context is provided.

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 sentence that directly states the action and scope. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to clarity.

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—zero parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations—the description is nearly complete. It fully explains the tool's purpose. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the response format (e.g., structured version numbers), but this is arguably unnecessary for a simple informational tool.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to explain. The description's mention of 'current' versions might imply a dynamic query, but it doesn't require parameter clarification.

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 function: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'show' is specific, the resource is well-defined, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on version information rather than authentication, connectivity, or marketplace actions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does, with no mention of exclusions or related tools like `toolkit_info` that might serve a similar informational purpose. Users are left to infer appropriate usage context.

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