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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds that it reports both platform and adapter versions, providing minor context beyond annotations, but does not disclose other behavioral details like output format or connectivity requirements.

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, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's function with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and clear.

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, and no output schema, the description is complete. It states exactly what versions are shown. Annotations already cover safety. No additional context is needed.

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 parametersarguments, and the schema has no properties. Per the rubric, a 4 is baseline for no parameters. The description adequately conveys the tool's purpose without needing to describe parameters.

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 shows MCP platform and adapter versions with a specific verb ('show') and resource ('versions'). It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, though it does not explicitly differentiate from any similar version-checking tool.

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 the tool is used to check current versions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or contrast with alternatives. Given the sibling set, it is clear enough for a version query, but no explicit usage guidance is provided.

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