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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true. The description adds substantial context beyond that: owner-only, admin review required, the LIVE listing keeps serving until approval and is never auto-unpublished, and the auth-disclosure correction path. It also discloses the sandbox-gated SSRF-hardened scan and that nothing executes on FindAgent.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence covers a distinct behavior or edge case. It is dense and somewhat long, but little is wasted; the heavy capitalization is stylistic rather than informative bloat.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers ownership, approval flow, no-op, auth, and failure conditions comprehensively. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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%, so the schema documents slug, bump, and changelog defaults. The description still adds an access constraint not in the schema ('you must own it') and confirms the bump enum and changelog override, giving it a slight edge over the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Publish a NEW version of YOUR OWN published MCP server by RE-INTROSPECTING its remote endpoint') and explicitly disambiguates from siblings, naming the code wizard and findagent_bump_version as the alternatives for other cases. An agent can identify the tool without opening the 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?

It details exactly when the tool acts (tool surface changed), when it is a no-op (tools unchanged), and the degraded paths (server requires auth, remote unreachable, scan unavailable), plus explicit routing away to the code wizard and findagent_bump_version. When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all present.

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