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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a clear safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, potential side effects, or return format. It is consistent with annotations, so a 3 is appropriate for adding minimal context beyond 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 sentence, concise and clearly structured. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it easy to parse and immediately informative.

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 tool with zero parameters, strong annotations, and a simple purpose, the description is complete. It states exactly what information is returned (current versions) and does not require additional explanation of return values or parameters. The presence of no output schema is not a gap given the trivial nature of the 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, resulting in 100% schema coverage. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics because there are none to document. The baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 a specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource (MCP platform and adapter versions). It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like toolkit_info, which might also provide general toolkit information. Thus it earns a 4 for clear but not explicitly differentiated purpose.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is so specific that usage is implied: whenever version information is needed. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, so it falls short of a higher score but is not misleading.

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