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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the two proof mechanisms (admin GitHub account on a declared repo vs DNS TXT record on the endpoint host), that the listing chooses the proof, and that re-calling is idempotent so an existing record stays valid. This is exactly the side-effect and auth context an agent needs for a non-readOnly operation, matching idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the action and its scope, then layers proof mechanics, the routing to verify_listing_claim, idempotency, and exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or annotations.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it still previews them ('returns which proof applies and, for DNS, the exact record name and value'). Combined with the idempotency and eligibility notes, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the 'give this OR agent_id' rule. The description adds the constraint that the target must be a published listing rather than an agent, but contributes no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('start/re-read a claim') on a specific resource ('an MCP server LISTING that you run'), and explicitly scopes it to LISTINGS rather than agents or other resources. An agent can distinguish it from findagent_verify_listing_claim, which is named as the follow-up step, without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('once the proof is in place, call findagent_verify_listing_claim'), what it does not do ('opening a claim grants nothing'), and an exclusion ('only published MCP server listings can be claimed, never an agent'). The alternative tool and the condition that selects it are both spelled out.

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