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

Annotations already declare this as safe (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying exactly what is reported—current MCP platform and adapter versions—which tells the agent the nature of the output without needing an output schema.

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 with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise.

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, non-mutating version query with strong read-only annotations, the description is complete. It states what the tool shows and implies a no-frills informational response, requiring no additional context to invoke correctly.

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 carries no semantic burden. The baseline for parameter-less tools is 4, and the description appropriately explains the informational output rather than 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 a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies what is shown ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or report_bug.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever version information about the MCP platform or adapters is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a simple version query no exclusion is necessary.

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