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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating lookup, so the bar is lowered. The description usefully discloses the provenance (Official MCP Registry), which hints at freshness/authority, but says nothing about behavior when a client has no config available or whether results can be stale.

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, zero waste, with the output shape (install command or config fragment) and the scope (one server, one client) front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does identify the two possible return forms. For a 3-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, that is nearly complete; only fallback/error behavior is unstated.

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%, so id, client, and search_id are all already documented in the schema (including the enum values and telemetry purpose of search_id). The description adds no parameter format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (return) plus the concrete resource (a ready-to-run install command or exact config fragment) scoped to one MCP server and one client, and names the data source. This distinguishes it from get_server (server details) and search_tools (discovery) by implication, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 the place in the workflow — you already know which server and client you want — and the search_id parameter hints at following a prior search_tools call, but the description body gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_server or search_tools.

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