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

Annotations already signal read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral guarantees beyond those annotations: it never fabricates commands and, when nothing is recorded, explicitly says so and points to official docs. This is valuable anti-hallucination context.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the full expected return contents, and the second adds the important no-fabrication behavior. Both sentences earn their 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?

With only 2 parameters, a 100%-covered schema, an output schema present, and read-only/non-destructive annotations, the description plus structured data fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The anti-fabrication guarantee closes the main real-world risk.

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 schema already documents 'resource' as a slug/id and 'client' as a client-specific target. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact resource and payload categories: installation method(s), config example, package info, transports, auth requirements, and source references. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_resource and search_resources by focusing specifically on installation 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 makes clear when the tool is appropriate: when an agent needs official installation instructions or related configuration/auth details for a resource. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion, so it misses full 5-level guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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