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 agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., output format, delays) beyond the fact that it shows versions, but with no annotations contradiction attempt, the description is not misleading. It earns a 3 by adding marginal context without contradicting.

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 verb 'Show,' and contains no waste. It fully communicates the purpose in minimal verbiage, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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), the presence of readOnly and idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could have mentioned what format the version output takes, but the lack of complexity makes the description sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 properties are empty with 100% coverage. The description need not explain parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 reports current MCP platform and adapter versions, a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which have different purposes, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 the tool (when needing version information) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. Given the sibling tools have unrelated purposes, the context is clear enough, but the description itself lacks any direct usage guidance beyond the obvious.

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