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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it reports both MCP platform and adapter versions, providing more detail than the annotations alone.

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, front-loaded sentence that is extremely concise and to the point. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous information.

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 params, no output schema, read-only operation), the description is fully adequate. It tells the user exactly what the tool does, and the annotations cover the behavioral safety aspects, making the description complete for this context.

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 schema is fully covered. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to clarify any parameter semantics since none exist.

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 the resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', clearly defining the tool's function. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or report_bug, which have 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 the tool is for retrieving version information but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like toolkit_info. There are no exclusions or clear contextual guidance, so it relies on the user inferring the obvious use case.

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