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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific output content (platform and adapter versions) but doesn't go beyond that. It doesn't disclose return format or any potential side effects, but annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds a bit of context about what versions are shown, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. It is concise and clear. Perfectly appropriate for this simple 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, basic read-only operation), the description is complete. It states what the tool does. Annotations cover safety traits. Siblings are unrelated, so no additional disambiguation needed. The description could be considered slightly sparse for transparency, but for a version check, this is sufficient.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no properties). The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is clear about what it returns. No additional param information needed.

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: it shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'show' is specific and the resource (platform and adapter versions) is named. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the sibling tools have unrelated purposes (auth, connection, marketplace, bug reporting, etc.), so no real confusion arises.

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 implicitly conveys usage: call this when you need to know version information. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the sibling tools have distinct functions, context implies the tool is for version queries. No explicit exclusion is provided, but the simplicity makes it adequate.

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