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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to restate read-only behavior. It adds valuable context beyond the annotation by noting that client-side platforms need a JWT and that each guide names the tool that issues one. This is a helpful cross-reference and prerequisite warning without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and contents; the second gives the common trigger phrases; the third adds the important JWT caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (install command, sample, doc links), when to use it, and the JWT nuance. An agent has everything it needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%: the single 'platform' parameter has an enum of seven valid values and a clear description ('Which SDK to return the installation guide for'). The description adds only a hint that client-side platforms need JWT authentication, but it does not enumerate which platforms are client-side, so it does not materially enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Courier SDK installation guide'), and scope ('for one platform'), and lists the guide's contents (install command, quick-start sample, doc links). It is plainly distinct from all sibling tools, which are API operations on Courier resources, so an agent can differentiate it without opening the schema.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'This is the answer to "how do I integrate Courier" or "how do I get started"'. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool is a plausible alternative (none return installation guides), so the context is sufficient. The JWT note also guides when authentication prerequisites matter.

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