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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful forward-looking context by revealing that the output includes required env vars and auth type, and mentions the three possible return forms. However, it does not address error handling, prerequisites, or unexpected 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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the key purpose and avoids unnecessary words. Every phrase contributes information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of return types and content. It mentions the three output forms and the inclusion of env vars and auth type, which is sufficient for most use cases. However, it omits details such as how to interpret the response for different clients or potential error conditions, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps 'slug' to a server and 'client' to an MCP client profile, which gives some meaning beyond the raw parameter names. The client enum is self-explanatory, but the exact semantics and expected format of 'slug' remain vaguely defined.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a copy-paste install command, JSON config, or hosted remote URL'). It also references a server and MCP client profile, which distinguishes it from the sibling film-related tools.

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 used for retrieving install configuration for a given server and client profile, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. No alternative tool names are mentioned.

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