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

Description identifies output as a command/snippet and implies the input product must be MCP-enabled (matching schema). However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence with 18 words, directly states the purpose, lists supported clients, and avoids any extraneous information. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, straightforward behavior), the description covers the essential aspects. It could be improved by explicitly stating the output format (e.g., a string with a shell command), but remains sufficient for use.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds context by reiterating the client list and specifying 'exact install command/snippet' as output, but does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides the exact install command/snippet for a product's MCP server and lists all supported clients, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_pricing or get_free_tier.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or contrast with sibling tools that might also return product-related information.

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