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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar for the description is lower. The description adds that the output is the 'exact configuration' for a gateway, but says nothing about the form of that config (snippet, file contents, command) or any auth prerequisite. With no output schema, more behavioral detail would help.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose comes first and the usage trigger second. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool whose whole job is returning a configuration artifact, the description never specifies what that artifact looks like (raw JSON, CLI commands, a file path) and there is no output schema to compensate. It is adequate to select the tool but leaves a real gap about the return value.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents client, key and url. The description merely restates the client enum values ('Claude Code, Codex or Cursor') and adds no meaning about the key or url parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the exact configuration') with the concrete scope of pointing Claude Code, Codex or Cursor at a JEV gateway. However, it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling get_mcp_install_commands, which an agent could easily confuse with this 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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when a user asks how to connect a coding agent to JEV.' That is a clear when-to-use condition. It stops short of any exclusion or alternative routing (e.g., when to prefer get_mcp_install_commands), so it doesn't reach the top band.

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