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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only. Description adds the return payload structure (install commands, transports, categories, registries, trust score) and clarifies the slug comes from search_mcps. Minor gap: no mention of not-found behavior or case sensitivity, but acceptable for a read-only lookup.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact list of included data and an explicit usage direction. Every phrase earns its place with no 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?

With one required parameter, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It gives the agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides only 'slug' as a string with no description (0% coverage). Description compensates by explaining what the slug is (as returned by search_mcps) and that it targets a single server, adding necessary context for correct invocation.

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 it provides full details for a single MCP server by slug, listing the specific content fields and linking to search_mcps for discovery. This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling search tool.

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?

Explicitly directs to use after search_mcps when the user wants to install or inspect a specific server, giving a clear workflow and contrasting with the alternative.

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