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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden; it does helpfully disclose the return shape ("a JSON block ready to paste into the client config"), which implies the tool only renders text rather than mutating any config file. It says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid slug/client pair, whether the output is version- or OS-specific, or whether any state changes.

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, zero filler, with the purpose stated first and the return contract second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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-required-param retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and what comes back, which is close to sufficient. Minor gaps: no note that a slug must first be obtained via search_mcp_servers, and no error or unsupported-client behavior.

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 the client enum is fully enumerated, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description only echoes "server and client" without adding format, matching, or fallback detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Get the exact install command") scoped to two explicit inputs (MCP server, client). No sibling tool produces an install command, so it is trivially distinguishable from search/recommend/compare/assess.

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 phrasing "for a given MCP server and client" implies you must already have selected both, and the schema note says slug comes from search or recommend results, but the description never states the sequencing or what to do when the slug is unknown. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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