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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully convey the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations imply—it does not describe output format, side effects, or required permissions. Given the annotations, the description provides minimal extra value, warranting a baseline score.

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 directly states the tool's function. There is no unnecessary wording, and it is immediately understandable without ambiguity.

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?

The tool is extremely simple: no parameters, no output schema, and a clear purpose. The description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns (versions). While it does not detail the exact format of the version response, this is not critical for such a trivial tool. Given the minimal complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% by default, and no additional meaning is required. A score of 4 reflects the baseline for zero-parameter tools, as there is no further burden on the description.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug, which have entirely different functions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool is self-evident, the description does not mention typical use cases (e.g., checking compatibility or debugging) or explicitly exclude alternates. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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