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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds specific context about the tool's output: it shows both MCP platform and adapter versions, which is more detailed than the annotations. No contradiction; it aligns with the read-only, idempotent nature.

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?

A single, succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only behavior, the description provides sufficient context. It names the exact items reported (platform and adapter versions). Some might expect a note about return format, but given the simplicity, this is adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema. Baseline for no parameters is 4 per rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, as none exist.

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 action (show) and the specific resource (current MCP platform and adapter versions). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic version tools and matches the tool name 'show_version'. No ambiguity.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as 'toolkit_info' or other informational tools. For a simple version check, the purpose is self-evident, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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