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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), it discloses the resulting state (a status=draft agent you own), that the command is stored/displayed but never run by FindAgent, and a security constraint (auth_note must NEVER carry a secret value). This is meaningful behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Long but dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then required basics, then optional fields, then next-step routing. A couple of clauses restate the same idea (FindAgent never runs it vs. the command is stored and displayed), so it is not maximally tight, but every sentence carries actionable content.

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 13-param creation tool, the description covers prerequisites, required vs optional fields, security constraints, resulting state, and cross-tool routing. An output schema exists, so return-value details are rightly omitted; nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 already high (85%), so the 3 baseline holds, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: example_prompts is 1-5 and required, `command` pairs with `args` (e.g. npx + ["-y","@scope/server"]), repo pairs with repo_path for monorepos, and tools is name+description. It also clarifies what a listing is NOT (not categorised or priced).

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+resource (create a marketplace LISTING for a local stdio MCP server) with precise scope: the server runs on the buyer's machine via npx/uvx/binary, and FindAgent never executes it. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling findagent_create_remote_mcp, so an agent can route 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 (local stdio server over a command) and when-not (hosted over https → use findagent_create_remote_mcp), plus a prerequisite (findagent_check_slug) and a required follow-up (findagent_submit_for_review in this client). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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