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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds that it shows versions, which is consistent. It does not add extra behavioral details like output format or potential errors, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It earns its place perfectly.

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, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the format of the version output, but that is not critical for a simple version query. The annotations and schema provide sufficient context.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is clear about what it does, so this score is justified.

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. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('versions'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' by focusing on version information. However, it could be slightly more explicit about what 'platform' and 'adapter' refer to, but the meaning is clear enough.

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 that this tool is used when the user wants to know the current versions of the MCP platform and adapter. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but given the sibling tools (e.g., 'toolkit_info' might provide broader info), the context is somewhat clear. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative mention, so it's adequate but not highly explicit.

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