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 useful context by specifying that both 'MCP platform' and 'adapter' versions are returned, which is beyond what annotations state and clarifies the output scope.

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, coherent sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action verb and immediately specifies the object, making it maximally 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?

For a parameterless, read-only version utility with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what information is returned. Combined with strong annotations, no additional context is necessary.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately makes no claims about 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the exact resources ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making it unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, or report_bug, which serve different purposes.

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?

While no alternatives are explicitly named, the context is unambiguous: this is a version-check utility with zero parameters. For such a simple tool, the lack of explicit usage exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is acceptable; an agent would naturally invoke this when needing version information.

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