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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating it shows versions, which is fine for a simple read-only tool. It doesn't describe output format or any side effects, but annotations cover the essential traits.

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 sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the key action and subject. Perfectly concise.

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 low complexity, no parameters, and clear annotations, the description is complete enough. It might benefit from specifying whether it returns a string or structured data, but since there is no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameters. The schema is empty. The description adds value by specifying what version info is shown (MCP platform and adapter versions), which goes beyond the schema. For a no-parameter tool, baseline is 4 for completeness.

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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb 'show' and a specific resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'toolkit_info' or 'authenticate'.

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: when you need to know current versions. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear given the tool's simplicity and zero parameters. The sibling list includes 'toolkit_info' which might also provide version info, but without more context, the description is adequate.

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