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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the returned content (install commands for five clients, plus tools and auth details), but says nothing about failure modes or what happens when the slug is unknown or unofficial.

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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded ('Get install commands...'), followed by the enumerated extras. No wasted text, though the auxiliary clause list is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the install commands, tools, and auth details returned. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool, missing only error/edge-case behavior.

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% for the single 'slug' parameter. The description partially compensates by indicating the slug addresses an 'official MCP server', which adds some meaning, but it gives no format, case, or sourcing hints for the slug value.

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 (Get) and a concrete resource (install commands, tools, and auth details for an MCP server by slug). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_guide or search_atlas.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the sibling tools (get_guide, get_pricing, search_atlas). An agent must infer usage entirely; the only implicit cue is 'by slug', suggesting a direct lookup rather than a search.

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