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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the quota regime, that automatic review approves low-risk MCP listings while uncertain cases wait for a human, that unauthenticated submission is allowed, and the specific failure modes (400 invalid body, 429 exhausted quota). That is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the status-polling instruction is useful, but the quota rule is stated twice almost verbatim ('Limit: one submission a day and three in the queue per owner' versus 'Each owner can submit once a day and keep up to three submissions in the queue'), which is pure redundancy in an otherwise short description.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the full lifecycle (submit, automatic or human review, poll `status_api`), quotas and error codes, so an agent can act without more. The one gap is that it never says the submission response yields the `:id` used in the status path, forcing the agent to infer where that identifier comes from.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents `url`, `kind`, `body`, `name`, `tagline` and `category` thoroughly. The description adds only the 'For a skill, provide its SKILL.md URL' hint, which largely restates the schema's `url` text, so this sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Submit an MCP server, skill or plugin for review') and enumerates the accepted kinds, so an agent immediately knows this registers a new listing for review. The review-and-decision framing further distinguishes it from read-side siblings like get_listing or list_listings.

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 concrete operating context: one submission per day, three queued per owner, no account required, and instructs the agent to poll `status_api` (with the exact path and 'no credential') to learn the outcome. What is missing is explicit routing versus the overlapping `submit_okf` sibling, which also appears as a `kind` value here.

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