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 read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that the data comes from the Official MCP Registry and enumerates the fields returned, but says nothing about failure behavior when an id is unknown or about rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then enumerates the returned data; every clause earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 return values and does reasonably well, listing the record, verification facts, and install-target clients. It stops short of describing the shape of those records or error handling for a bad id, so it is good but not fully complete.

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% – both id (full registry name format) and search_id (optional telemetry) are documented in the schema itself, including the example format. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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), resource (registry record for one MCP server), and scope (one, keyed by id), plus what the payload contains. It separates itself from search_tools implicitly through the search_id parameter, but never names the sibling get_install_config, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement. The search_id parameter description ('from the search_tools result that led you here') implies the intended lookup-after-search flow, but the description itself gives no guidance on prerequisites or when to prefer get_install_config over this tool.

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