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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'current' (implying live retrieval), but it doesn't describe any side effects, rate limits, or return format. With annotations covering the main traits, this is acceptable but not enriched beyond structured data.

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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key verb and resource, making it immediately actionable. Nothing is superfluous.

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, rich annotations, no output schema needed), the description is complete for operational purposes. It explains what the tool does without needing to detail return values or side effects. A slightly higher score would require explicit statement of what versions are covered (e.g., adapter names), but this is adequate for a straightforward version checker.

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, so the baseline is 4. The schema is trivially complete (no parameters to document), and the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. It correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than empty parameter details.

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 identifies the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, as none of those are about 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 description implies usage for checking version info but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or context where another tool might be preferred (e.g., toolkit_info could also provide system info). The intent is obvious but not explicitly differentiated from siblings.

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