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 fully covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this — it states what it shows but not, for example, that it performs no network calls or requires no auth. Given a zero-parameter info tool with strong annotation coverage, the baseline of 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Show.' No filler, no repetition of what annotations already state. Appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent informational tool with no output schema, the description 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' is nearly complete. It clarifies what is shown (platform + adapter versions), which is all an agent needs to select and invoke this tool. Slight room to detail the return format, but not required at this complexity level.

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 Frances, so the description needs no parameter elaboration. Baseline 4 applies for 0-parameter tools. There is nothing to clarify for the agent.

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') plus a well-defined resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It clearly distinguishes from all siblings — none of which provide version information — and precisely states what the tool returns.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident as a version-check utility diagnostic. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions, but for a zero-param informational tool, the usage context is implied by its nature. No competing sibling performs this function, so differentiation isn't strictly necessary.

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