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

Despite readOnlyHint=true, the description goes well beyond annotations: it explains that validation runs against schema and the live registry, that duplicate detection occurs, and that it returns three ready-to-file payload forms (REST body, gh CLI command, browser URL). It also clarifies the crucial behavioral nuance that submissions are claims and a maintainer verifies independently, which resolves any ambiguity between the name 'submit' and the read-only annotation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before the caveats. The middle sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct information; 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?

With no output schema, the description valuably describes the return payload structure, which the agent would otherwise have to guess. It omits what a validation failure returns and whether partial validation errors are surfaced, but for a 10-param tool with 90% schema coverage and no output schema, this is close to complete.

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 90%, so the schema already documents the 10 fields thoroughly, making a 3 the baseline. The description adds indirect semantics (the link is the primary source, the install command must be verified working) but does not explain parameter formats or the meaning of the pricing enum beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Propose a new MCP server for the mcp.film directory') and immediately distinguishes itself from the read/list siblings by describing its validate-then-return-payload behavior. No other sibling creates or proposes listings, so the role is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied (use this when you want to propose a server that isn't listed) and one constraint is given ('never submit URLs or commands you haven't seen work'), plus it notes duplicate detection happens inside the tool. However it never states when-not to use it or names an alternative (e.g. search_film_mcps first), leaving routing to inference.

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