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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Deterministic, no model call,' fallback behavior for transport/auth, error handling for invalid URLs, and the return shape. This exceeds what annotations alone provide, earning a solid 4.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and concrete client examples that justify the length. Each clause adds value (trap examples, use case, deterministic behavior, input/output shapes). It could be slightly more compact, but the density is high and the structure is logical.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's context: purpose, input structure, output structure (clients array with method and snippet), error behavior, deterministic nature, and cost. Since there is no output schema, the explicit 'Returns {clients: [...], count}' is essential and provided. This is a complete description for a complex tool.

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 input schema already provides highly detailed descriptions for every parameter (normalization, fallbacks, aliases). The tool description merely summarizes the parameter list without adding new semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Generate copy-paste-correct MCP install snippets for ~29 clients at once.' It specifies the exact output (snippets, config methods) and the client-specific traps encoded. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, none of which target MCP installation.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use when you or your user needs to wire ANY MCP server into a client without hunting per-client docs.' This provides a concrete when-to-use scenario. It doesn't name alternatives, but given the tool's unique niche among siblings, this is sufficient.

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