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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the quota exemption ('Does not count toward your monthly searches') and the client scope. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't describe return format or pagination, which are not critical for a zero-parameter 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 exactly two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a key behavioral note in the second. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with good annotation coverage and no output schema, the description fully covers the essential aspects: what it returns, for whom, and a relevant non-functional characteristic. No additional context is necessary.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and fully described. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information. It correctly avoids inventing parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('MCP setup instructions for Claude Desktop and other clients'), clearly stating what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools, as no other tool provides setup instructions.

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 description implies usage when setup instructions are needed and highlights that the tool does not count toward monthly searches, which is relevant context for choosing it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_tool_guide.

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