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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that safety profile. It usefully adds that a network probe is performed against the endpoint, but it does not say what happens if the probe fails, that probing is optional, or how auth headers affect the request. Tension with the probe=false default is left unexplained.

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 dense sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the probe detail trailing. No filler text, though the parenthetical client list makes it slightly long for one sentence.

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 5-parameter tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers only the happy path. It omits the header parameters (critical for probing authenticated endpoints), the probe toggle, and any indication of the snippet format or how probe results are reported.

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 20% (only 'name' is documented), so the description must compensate for url, probe, headerName, and headerValue. It mentions none of them explicitly, leaving the header-based auth mechanism and the ability to disable probing entirely invisible to the agent.

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 resource ('Generate install snippets for an MCP endpoint') and enumerates the client targets, then names the secondary action of probing the endpoint via initialize and tools/list. An agent immediately knows what comes back, and the unrelated siblings (check_ai_crawlers, lint_agent_md, etc.) create no ambiguity to resolve.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose and by the required url parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no stated prerequisite (e.g. a reachable endpoint), and no note that the probe can be skipped. With no overlapping siblings, the implied usage is adequate but nothing more.

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