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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only returns commands, does not install anything remotely, and does not receive harness data. This is valuable non-obvious behavior. It could go further by explicitly stating the tool does not execute the commands, but 'return commands' strongly implies that.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a clarifying negative. Every word earns its place; no fluff or 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 simple command-return tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, that it's local-only, and that it avoids data sharing. It could explain what 'MCP wiring commands' means for users unfamiliar with the domain, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the optional target_agent is fully described in the schema). According to the rubric, this sets a baseline of 3. The description does not add any additional parameter information, which is acceptable given the schema covers it completely.

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: 'Return no-data local install and MCP wiring commands.' This is specific (verb+resource) and distinguishes it from siblings like list_products and start_checkout. The additional clarifying sentence about the remote server not installing anything reinforces the scope.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: for local install and MCP wiring, and explicitly states what it does NOT do (remote install, data transfer). However, it does not name an alternative tool for remote install scenarios, unlike the high-watermark example, so it stops short of a 5.

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