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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the payload contains (env vars and auth type), which is real behavioral context an agent needs to know it may surface credential requirements, though it doesn't say whether live secret values are included.

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 tightly written sentences with the deliverable front-loaded and the supporting content (env vars, auth type) trailing. 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 two-param read-only tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers what is returned across all three output modes. The remaining gap is the ambiguous client enum values and slug sourcing, which the schema does not resolve either.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it does partially: 'a server' maps to slug and 'MCP client profile' maps to client, and 'hosted remote URL' hints at the hosted_remote enum value. However, it never explains slug format/lookup or the distinction between hosted_remote and generic_remote, so two undocumented params remain only half-explained.

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 (get) and resource (install config) and enumerates the three output forms it can return: install command, JSON config, or hosted remote URL. That makes its scope clear against siblings like get_film_mcp or list_client_profiles, though it never explicitly names a sibling to differentiate from.

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 mention of 'a server and MCP client profile' tells the agent the inputs it needs, but there is no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing against alternatives such as plan_film_stack or get_film_mcp. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the trigger condition.

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