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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the return shape varies per client, Grok Bot returns a chat message rather than a config, and the result may include a file path and one-click deeplink.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the special-case behavior for Grok Bot follows immediately after the general case. The 11-client enumeration duplicates the enum and adds length, but it is not harmful and keeps the description self-contained.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still sketches the response shape. What remains unstated is failure behavior for an unknown slug or unsupported client combination, which is minor for a simple lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the client enum description already explains grok vs grok-bot and the json fallback, so the description's client list largely restates the schema. The only added nuance is that Grok Bot's value is a chat message, which the schema already notes. 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?

The description names the exact resource (the install config or command for one server in one client) and enumerates the supported clients, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from get_server or compare_servers. The enumeration of return content (config file path, deeplink) makes the purpose concrete rather than tautological.

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 phrase 'to install one server in one client' establishes clear usage context: call this when the user needs the actual installation artifact. There is no explicit exclusion or pointer to siblings (e.g., when to use get_server instead of get_install), so it stops short of routing guidance.

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