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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description matches. The description adds the detail that it reports 'MCP platform and adapter versions,' but does not go further into behavior like output format or potential failure modes. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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?

One sentence, perfectly concise, no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple version tool.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells exactly what it shows and is consistent with sibling naming. No extra detail is needed.

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, so the schema is fully covered (100%). The description clarifies that it returns versions, which adds a small layer of meaning beyond the empty schema. Baseline for zero params is 4, and it meets that.

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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like toolkit_info or marketplace by specifying exactly what versions it returns.

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 usage (call when you need version info) and provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. Since the tool has no parameters and is straightforward, it does not require extensive guidance, but it lacks any mention of when not to use it.

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