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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a command-generating tool, and the description usefully adds that output spans three clients plus a Cursor one-click link. Beyond that it discloses no auth requirements, rate limits, or whether commands are pre-validated, so with annotations already carrying the safety profile this is adequate rather than rich.

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 what-it-returns detail front-loaded before the usage trigger. 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?

A simple read-only tool with a fully documented two-param schema and no output schema; the description broadly characterizes the return value (commands per client plus a link). Nothing essential is missing, though it could note the expected output shape more concretely.

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 both parameters (url, name) are already documented with examples and format hints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 correct here.

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 (install commands for a remote MCP server) and enumerates the target clients (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_client_setup, which could plausibly be confused with this, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Use when a user wants to add an MCP server URL to their agents" gives clear triggering context. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer get_client_setup), so it is not a 5.

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