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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond stating what it displays; it doesn't provide additional insights like side effects or prerequisites, but for a zero-parameter read tool, this is sufficient.

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 conveys the tool's function with no wasted words or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (platform and adapter versions). No additional details are necessary, making the description complete for its purpose.

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 parameter semantics baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and the schema confirms no parameters exist. The description correctly focuses on the tool's action rather than parameters.

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: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'show' is specific, and the resource is well-defined. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on version information, though not explicitly contrasting with toolkit_info.

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 a straightforward use case for checking versions. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like toolkit_info, but given its simplicity and the context of siblings, the guidance is adequate for a version-checking tool.

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