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 no extra behavioral traits (e.g., connection requirements, output format) beyond what the annotations provide, which is acceptable for such a trivial read-only tool.

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 function. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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, no-argument, read-only version tool, the description is complete. It conveys what the tool returns (platform and adapter versions) and needs no additional context. The absence of an output schema is not a gap here because the return value is self-explanatory.

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 description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters since there are none to explain.

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' and names the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or report_bug, none of which deal with version information.

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 usage context is obvious: it is the go-to tool for checking version info. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the clear purpose and lack of similar tools make the intended usage evident.

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