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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the returned snippet embeds the app's key, and CSP guidance is emitted 'if — and only if — the project already has one', which tells the agent output varies by project state.

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 tight sentence with the three returned artifacts listed in priority order (script tag, placement, CSP). The em-dash aside on CSP is dense but earns its place by preventing spurious CSP advice.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does: script tag, insertion point, conditional CSP entry. It leaves open what happens when framework is omitted, but for a read-only instruction generator that is a minor gap.

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%, so both parameters (appId, framework) are already fully documented with the framework enum enumerated. The description only loosely ties 'framework' to placement and 'key' to appId, adding little beyond the schema; 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 states precisely what the tool returns: the exact script tag (with key), where it goes for the given framework, and the CSP addition. It is a noun-phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but the output is unambiguous and 'for an app' distinguishes it from the sibling get_server_install_instructions without naming it.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The appId description ('From list_apps') and the conditional CSP clause imply the workflow (list apps first, then fetch instructions), but the agent must infer that this precedes check_install.

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