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

The annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) already disclose the behavioral traits. The description adds no extra details but is fully consistent with these annotations, so no contradiction exists.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It gets straight to the point without any fluff.

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 simple version-check tool, the description fully conveys what the tool does and implies what the output will be (the versions). There is no missing context that would confuse a user or AI agent.

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 no parameters to describe; the schema confirms an empty object. The description does not need to explain parameters, making this trivially complete.

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 verb 'Show' and resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions' clearly specifies the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect', which have different purposes.

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?

While no explicit 'when to use' is stated, the tool's simplicity makes its usage obvious—whenever version information is needed. It does not mention alternatives, but given the trivial nature, this is sufficient.

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