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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the verification behavior: an endpoint 'must complete an MCP initialize handshake' and a domain 'must serve a manifest that parses.' It also reassures the agent that 'nothing is taken on trust,' adding meaningful operational context that the annotations 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 three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the parameter mapping is compact, and the verification behavior earns its place. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 low-complexity tool with two fully documented parameters and helpful annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter selection, and verification. It does not describe the response/error format, and there is no output schema to fall back on, which is a minor completeness gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by pairing each parameter with its intended usage and validation requirement, clarifying that endpoint means an MCP server URL and domain means a site serving an ARD manifest. This goes beyond the schema but could have specified the either/or selection rule more explicitly.

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: 'List an MCP server or an ARD-publishing domain in this index so other agents can discover it.' It clearly distinguishes the publish/registration intent from the sibling find tools, and the two supported forms (endpoint vs domain) are explicit.

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?

The description gives concrete guidance on which input to provide: 'Give `endpoint` for an MCP server URL, or `domain` for a site that serves an ARD manifest.' It implies this tool is for registering resources rather than discovering them, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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