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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful context on top: what the payload contains (company, environment, setup brief), a security guarantee (never credential values), and a scope boundary (no app launch, no config change). It does not describe the shape of the returned prompt/links, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable, then the payload contents, then the exclusion. Every clause adds information and none repeat the schema or annotations.

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 does at least characterize the return (a setup prompt and app links) and the safety posture. Against 7 parameters at 29% coverage, however, an agent still lacks guidance on what 'name', 'id', 'description' and 'instructions' should contain for a correct call.

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 only 29%, so the description must carry weight, and it only partly does: 'Includes the selected company, environment and setup brief' loosely maps to company/environment, and 'never credential values' usefully clarifies that the fields array holds variable names rather than secrets. The required 'name', the 'custom-' id pattern, 'description' and 'instructions' remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and deliverable: prepare an integration-specific MCP setup prompt plus Codex/Claude Code app links. That is far more than a restated name and makes the output distinguishable from generic integration tools, though it never names a sibling (e.g. summer_integrations_save) to contrast against.

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?

Provides a useful negative constraint — 'does not launch an app or change configuration' — which tells the agent this is a preparation step, not an execution step. But there is no explicit 'use this when...' trigger and no named alternative for actually applying configuration, so routing is only implied.

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