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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral value by warning that 'Directory URLs remain null until publication is explicitly enabled,' which is a non-obvious state an agent must know. It also clarifies the 'authenticated' requirement and the concept of 'publication-aware' behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The primary operation is front-loaded, and the critical caveat about directory URLs is placed second, making the structure both efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description does not need to explain return shapes or non-destructiveness. The main behavioral caveat is included, and the auth context is mentioned. The only notable omission is the meaning of the locale parameter, which slightly reduces completeness for a tool with one parameter.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the locale parameter at all. The schema provides an enum and default, so an agent can infer some meaning, but the description should have compensated for the missing schema documentation by stating whether locale controls the language of the returned install options or something else. This is a clear gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('publication-aware installation options for the authenticated DigitalPublic operational product'), and the target contexts (OpenAI, Claude Code, generic MCP clients). This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_integration_options or list_integrations without needing to open the schema.

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 tool is for retrieving install options and emphasizes the 'authenticated' and 'publication-aware' aspects, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as dp_commercial_compare_integration_options or dp_commercial_list_integrations, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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