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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing what the output actually contains: client-specific config syntax and '<value>' placeholders where credentials must be supplied. It does not mention that the config is generated from published endpoint/package data without validating the server, which is a minor gap.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then details the per-client output formats. It earns its place but is packed enough that the client-to-format mapping requires a second read.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so (config snippet per client with credential placeholders). Both required parameters are addressed, though error/lookup behaviour for an unknown slug is unstated.

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 0%, so the schema gives only a pattern for 'slug' and an enum for 'client'. The description partially compensates by tying 'slug' to a listed server and by naming the five clients (Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Claude Desktop, Codex), which maps onto the enum values and clarifies what each client argument yields. It still does not explain slug lookup failures or name-to-enum mapping explicitly.

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 names a concrete deliverable (the exact configuration to add a listed MCP server to a client) and enumerates the concrete output flavours (Claude Code command, mcpServers JSON, config.toml table). This is clearly distinct from the sibling browsing tools (get_listing, search_directory, compare_listings), which return directory data rather than client setup snippets.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for when a user wants to wire a listed server into their client. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. the server must already be in the directory), and no mention of the alternative of just reading get_listing details instead.

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