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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the output is 'a JSON block ready to paste into the client config,' which discloses the return format. Yet it does not mention error behavior, network dependencies, or any requirements like valid slugs, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed for a read-only lookup tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the output format. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema) and no annotations, the description adequately explains what it does and what it returns. It does not explain edge cases or error handling, but for a straightforward install-command getter, the provided context is nearly complete.

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% with descriptions for both server_slug ('Slug of the server (from search or recommend results)') and client ('Target client' with enum). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the exact install command for a given MCP server and client.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like search_mcp_servers or assess_server. The tool's unique role is obvious.

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 phrase 'for a given MCP server and client' establishes the prerequisite that you must already have a specific server and client in mind, implying this is used after server selection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for discovery, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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