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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by documenting the return keys, the null-config failure mode, and the recovery path ('try a different client from available_clients') — useful operational context that annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by Args/Returns and an actionable usage note — well organized and easy to scan. Minor redundancy: the client enum and default are repeated verbatim from the schema, which is unnecessary given 100% schema coverage.

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, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields (config, install_command, available_clients, page_url) plus the null case. Combined with the sequencing and presentation guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on results.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description largely restates the same slug source and client enum/default rather than adding new semantics (no format constraints, no notable edge cases beyond what the schema says). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: produce a ready-to-paste install config for a given MCP server and client. The phrase 'Use this AFTER finding an MCP via search' implicitly separates it from search_mcp_servers and get_mcp_details, so an agent can choose without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear sequencing ('Use this AFTER finding an MCP via search') and downstream instructions (show the snippet and the config file path). It also prescribes a recovery action when config is null. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_mcp_details or another sibling instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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