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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by indicating what is surfaced ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), but does not describe return format or any additional behavioral details.

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 that conveys the tool's entire purpose with no filler or redundancy. It earns its place completely.

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 minimal complexity, zero parameters, and straightforward read-only nature, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states what the tool returns, though the absence of an output schema means slightly more detail about the return shape could be helpful.

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, and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.

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 names the exact resources ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the purpose immediately clear. This also distinguishes it from siblings like toolkit_info, which likely covers broader tooling information.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever the current platform or adapter versions are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple read-only version tool this is sufficient.

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