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 description does not need to cover these. The description adds a slight behavioral trait ('current') implying a live query, but it does not disclose additional details like output format, side effects, or error conditions. This is adequate given the annotations and simple nature of the tool, but no extra context is provided.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Show' and includes the necessary resource. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 (zero parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what information it returns (versions). There are no open questions about usage or side effects that would require further detail.

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 the description does not need to explain any parameter meaning. With no parameters, the baseline is 4; the description adequately focuses on the tool's function without missing parameter documentation.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'toolkit_info' by naming exactly what versions are displayed. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose statement.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The usage is implied by the purpose statement—the agent can infer that it should be called when the user asks for version information—but there is no explicit context or differentiation from sibling tools.

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