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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does reveal one real behavioral trait: the output is "exact" snippets rather than generic guidance. It says nothing about response format, whether snippets are ready to paste or require placeholder substitution, whether any network or auth requirement exists, or what happens on an unsupported agent name.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource, with the accepted values placed immediately after in a compact parenthetical. Every element — verb, resource, precision claim ("exact"), and target list — carries information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns conceptually (configuration snippets) and for which targets. The remaining gap is return shape — per-agent object, formatted string, or file contents — which the absent output schema would otherwise have to supply.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description earns an increase by supplying something the schema omits: the actual set of valid agent values. The schema declares "agent" as a free string with no enum, so this enumeration is the only place an agent learns legal inputs. Omitted-parameter behavior is documented only in the schema, not the description.

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?

"Returns exact MCP configuration snippets for a coding agent" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the supported agent targets (cursor, claude_desktop, claude_code, codex, windsurf, antigravity, gemini_cli). What it lacks is any contrast with siblings such as search_docs, so an agent must infer that this is the direct retrieval path rather than a documentation lookup.

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 use case is strongly implied by "for a coding agent" plus the target list, so an agent can infer it should call this when producing config for one of those clients. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no stated exclusion versus the docs-search sibling, and no guidance about which target to pick beyond the enumeration.

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