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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the nuance of 'current', implying live data. However, it doesn't disclose any further behavior (e.g., whether it performs network calls or returns cached data). It meets the baseline without adding extra depth 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, perfectly concise and front-loaded. It communicates the essential purpose without any filler, earning every word.

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 trivial nature of the tool—no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety—this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect: a read-only summary of current versions. There is no missing information for the agent to decide or 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 fully covers parameter semantics. Per guidelines, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to describe.

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. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('versions'), and it is distinct from siblings like authenticate or connect, 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 when to use it—when you need to know current platform/adapter versions. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the simple nature and lack of competing tools, this is sufficient. It clearly indicates a read-only query.

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