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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly. It states validation against schema and live registry, duplicate detection, the output payload formats (REST API body, gh CLI command, browser URL), and the claim-vs-instruction model with human verification. This is rich, non-obvious behavior.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds meaningful information—validation, duplicate detection, output payload, verification workflow, and submission safety. There is no waste or repetition.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to use it independently: what it does, how it validates, what it returns, and what the human workflow is. The high schema coverage covers parameter details, so the description fills the remaining gaps well.

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 high (90%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds some contextual flavor by framing all inputs as claims to be verified, but it does not explain individual parameter semantics beyond the schema. That is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Propose a new MCP server for the mcp.film directory.' It also clarifies the tool's role by listing validation behavior and the returned GitHub issue payload. Since no sibling tool handles submission, it is fully differentiated.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when proposing a new MCP server to the directory. It also provides practical guardrails ('never submit URLs or commands you haven't seen work'). It lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' clause, but the sibling list makes the submission context unambiguous.

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