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

Annotations already declare this as read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds that it returns version information, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., exact return format, potential delays). It adds modest value beyond annotations.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no wasted verbosity; every word contributes to understanding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what is shown, though it does not mention output format or any side effects (which are none). It could note that it returns a version string, but it is not necessary for basic use.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to describe parameters, and no parameters exist to add meaning for. The description accurately conveys the sole purpose.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from a potential sibling like 'toolkit_info' by focusing specifically on versions, though it does not explicitly mention that distinction.

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 usage via its clear purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as 'toolkit_info'. It lacks context about typical use cases or exclusions, making it adequate but not proactive.

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