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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by listing the returned resource contents and the availability condition for installable registry items. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but the annotation bar is lower here.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The trailing availability condition is slightly awkward but still concise and purposeful.

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 usefully enumerates the returned artifacts, and the annotations cover safety. However, it leaves both input parameters undocumented and does not clarify sibling selection, so an agent still lacks guidance for correct invocation.

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 description must carry parameter meaning, yet it never mentions the required 'slug' or the enum-valued 'kind' parameter. Terms like 'Watermelon entry' and 'installable registry item' do not map explicitly to either input field.

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 states a specific action (get) and enumerates concrete return artifacts (preview, dependencies, install command, source files), making the purpose clear. It stops short of explicitly differentiating this tool from the sibling get_catalog_entry or list_catalog_entries.

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 gives only an availability condition ('when an installable registry item is available') but does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings like get_catalog_entry or search. No when-not guidance or alternative routing is provided.

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