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

The description says 'Show', which aligns perfectly with the annotations readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. There is no indication of side effects, destructive behavior, or open-world semantics. No contradictions or omitted behavioral caveats are present.

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, efficiently written sentence that conveys the tool's function without unnecessary verbosity. It is neither vague nor over-specified, striking the right balance for a simple version-inspection tool.

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?

While the tool has no output schema, the description indicates it returns 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. This gives a general expectation of the response content. However, it doesn't specify the exact format (e.g., JSON structure, string representation), which could be useful. Still, for a version tool, the absence of output schema is acceptable given the clear intent.

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 (schema is empty with no properties). With 100% description coverage (the description explicitly mentions the information returned), there is nothing about parameters to be ambiguous or undocumented. The description succinctly identifies what the tool produces.

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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' is unambiguous and clearly states the tool's action ('Show') and its subject ('versions'). It directly maps to the tool name 'show_version', making the purpose immediately obvious even without the title.

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 takes no parametersache, so there are no prerequisites or invocation complexity. The description implies it can be called directly to retrieve versioning information, but it doesn't explicitly state when it's appropriate to use or if any setup is required. Still, for a version display utility, this is straightforward and requires no guidance.

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