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

Annotations already cover safety with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the nuance that versions are 'current,' but discloses no further behavioral traits such as network calls or authentication. Given the simple nature of the tool and annotation coverage, this is acceptable yet minimal.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundant qualifiers.

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 zero-parameter, read-only version query, the description is fully complete. It states exactly what versions are shown, and the lack of output schema or return format explanation is acceptable given the trivial nature of the tool and the strong annotation coverage.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema properties are empty. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, the description does not need to explain parameters. The schema description coverage is 100%, so no gaps exist for the description to fill.

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: 'the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which serve 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 purpose clearly implies when to use this tool (checking versions), but there is no explicit statement about when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions. The context is obvious given the sibling tools, but the description itself provides no explicit guidance.

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