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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It discloses that the tool probes the endpoint (initialize + tools/list), is SSRF-gated, refuses dead doors or empty rosters with evidence, is idempotent per slug, refreshes the roster on re-run, carries no official badge, and binds the listing to the seat by proven ownership. It also states the auth requirement. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers the mechanism, the probe behavior, the idempotency, the badge distinction, the optional parameter, the prerequisite, and the auth requirement. It is long, but the tool is complex and the information is all decision-relevant. It is front-loaded with the core action and then details.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It explains what happens on success (listing published, board link lights up, agent recalls, brand tag filter), what happens on failure (dead door or empty roster refuses with evidence), the idempotency behavior, the prerequisite (seat), the auth requirement, and the relationship to the sibling registry_publish. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter mcp_url, and the schema already describes it as the streamable-http endpoint. The description adds meaning by explaining that passing it sets/replaces the seat's MCP door in the same call and that it also lives at PATCH /api/pages/me/seat. This is value beyond the schema, though the schema already covers the basic format.

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 verb and resource: 'link your own remote MCP server and Rokha publishes your registry listing from it.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling registry_publish and registry_list_server by explaining the live-seat mechanism, the probing behavior, and the idempotent slug. The title also adds a directional arrow that clarifies the action.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: as a live-seat perk, when you have a remote MCP server, and optionally to set/replace the seat's MCP door. It also gives a when-not: 'No seat yet? Buy one first (board_buy / rokha.ai/wall).' It names the alternative location for the same door (PATCH /api/pages/me/seat) and the auth requirement. This is explicit routing guidance.

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