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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the two distinct failure modes (proof did not hold vs. could not check), the authorization requirement, the mutated end state ('the listing is yours to manage'), and a rate-limit/budget constraint with guidance not to poll.

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-loaded with the core action and its conditional outcome, then prerequisites, failure handling, and the polling caution. Dense but each sentence carries distinct operational information; the DNS budget sentence is slightly long but justified by its non-obvious constraint.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers everything else an agent needs: precondition setup, both proof paths, failure interpretation, mutation semantics, and post-success discovery via findagent_list_my_agents.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the slug/agent_id OR-relationship and the both-must-match rule. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Check the proof for your open claim on an MCP server listing and, only if it holds, make the listing yours'), which distinguishes it from findagent_claim_listing (which opens the claim) and findagent_list_my_agents (which finds the result). An agent can tell exactly what this tool accomplishes 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?

Explicit when-to-use conditions for both proof types (GitHub admin membership vs. visible DNS TXT record), explicit prerequisites via findagent_connect_github and findagent_claim_listing, and an explicit when-NOT-to-use warning about polling during DNS propagation with a retry recommendation.

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