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

Discloses material behaviors beyond the annotations: creates a status=draft agent, stores and displays the server URL only, never executes on FindAgent, auto-detects tools via a sandbox-gated live scan, and allows overrides. This is exactly the kind of mutation/side-effect 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 appropriate for a 14-parameter tool with nested objects. It front-loads the core purpose and then flows through listing basics, endpoint/schema options, auto-detection behavior, and post-call steps; nearly every sentence adds operational value, though a bit of restructuring could reduce cognitive load.

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, the description covers the essential workflow, prerequisites, follow-up action, behavioral constraints, and parameter relationships. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required, and nothing an agent needs to call this tool 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 100%, but the description adds meaningful cross-parameter guidance: example_prompts is required even though the schema lists no required fields, server_json is used instead of server_url, auth_note must never contain secrets, category_slug must be top-level, and transport defaults depend on server.json. This materially improves correct invocation beyond the 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 description uses a specific verb-plus-resource pattern: 'List an EXTERNAL remote MCP server you run as a marketplace LISTING,' and precisely scopes what the tool does versus what it does not do. It clearly differentiates this creation flow from siblings like findagent_create_draft by identifying the remote-server listing use case and naming the follow-up submit tool.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call findagent_check_slug and findagent_list_categories before invoking, and to call findagent_submit_for_review afterward. It also defines the intended scenario — your own infrastructure, buyers connect directly — which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate rather than a generic draft-creation sibling.

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