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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing the exact behavior: calling initialize and tools/list, running a security scan for secrets and injection patterns, computing a 0-100 score, and storing the entry with version history. It also notes that authentication is required. This adds useful context about side effects and validation steps. However, 'Authentication required' is somewhat vague about the mechanism, and the description is slightly redundant due to repeated phrasing.

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 redundant: it repeats nearly the same sentence twice ('Validates the endpoint by calling initialize and tools/list, runs automated security scan...' and 'Validates the endpoint (calls initialize + tools/list), runs security scan...'). The first sentence is sufficiently detailed, and the second sentence adds no new information. This violates conciseness, and the structure is not tight.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, mutation, validation, security scanning, version history), the description covers the essential process: validation calls, security scan, score, storage, and authentication. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Minimal gaps: it doesn't clarify whether this creates a new entry or updates an existing one, and it lacks specifics about authentication requirements.

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?

All 10 parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the schema already provides full parameter semantics. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the burden effectively.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Publish an MCP server to the ThinkNEO Marketplace.' This uses a strong verb ('publish') and a concrete resource, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling registry tools (get, search, install, review) by focusing on the publication 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 clearly establishes the tool's context: it is for publishing a server to the ThinkNEO Marketplace, including validation and security scanning. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools (e.g., 'for installing an existing server, use thinkneo_registry_install'), so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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