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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses what the returned payload contains (wrapping code plus two secrets) and, importantly, what it deliberately omits ("Never includes the key itself"). Return-shape and pagination details are absent, keeping this short of 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core payload description is front-loaded. The parenthetical platform list is slightly redundant with the schema enum but otherwise every clause carries information.

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 read-only instruction-fetching tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: it names the integration target, the supported platforms, the secrets involved, and the guarantee that no key is returned. Nothing critical for a correct call is missing.

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 are fully documented in the schema, including the platform enum meanings. The description only echoes the platform list (Supabase, Next.js, Vercel, Cloudflare, Express) already present in the enum, so it does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 concretely what the tool returns: the handler-wrapping code for @getvigilia/server and the two secrets it reads, across named platforms. It distinguishes itself from create_server_key ("Never includes the key itself"), but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_install_instructions, leaving some ambiguity about which install guide to pick.

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 only implied: the reader infers this is for server/backend integration because the content is server-side and the alternative create_server_key is named for apps lacking a key. There is no explicit when-to-use-this vs get_install_instructions guidance, so the agent must infer from the platform enum and wording.

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