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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/world scope is covered. The description adds genuinely useful post-call behavior: Faceabot 'measures it automatically and recommends it when it fits a need,' plus the implication that the endpoint becomes public in the catalog. It stops short of describing validation, review latency, or what happens if the endpoint is unreachable.

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 purpose sentence followed by clearly labeled 'Use when,' 'Do not use when,' and an example. Every element earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 4-parameter submission tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, eligibility, and downstream behavior adequately. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and whether the submission is reviewed or immediately live, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the optional 'website.' The inline example adds a little concrete format guidance for url/name/description, but it omits 'website' and adds no semantics 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Adds a public MCP endpoint you operate to the catalog') and immediately clarifies the effect, which resolves the ambiguity in the title 'List your own MCP server.' It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like find_capability or check_reliability.

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 routing is provided with 'Use when: you run a server other agents could use' and the exclusion 'Do not use when: the server is not yours.' This directly tells the agent the precondition and the disqualifying condition, leaving little to inference.

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