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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the asynchronous acceptance process (observed every 6 hours for 7 days), the criteria for listing (reliable answers, stable tools, every tool described), that placement cannot be bought, that there is no charge, and that the call returns a status page plus an optional owner-verification token. The idempotentHint is corroborated by the 'tried endpoint paths' fallback 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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the input flexibility, then the process and outcome — a logical order with almost no filler. It is dense but every sentence carries information; only the 'No charge' closing is slightly redundant with 'Placement cannot be bought'.

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 submission tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: eligibility, input fallback, observation window, acceptance criteria, cost, and the shape of the return (status page + optional verification token). Nothing material is left unexplained.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the url parameter accepts either a full server address or just a business domain, in which case 'the usual endpoint paths are tried'. That fallback semantics is not derivable from the schema's maxLength/minLength constraints.

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 — putting a new MCP server on the 7Maps map — and scopes it to servers 'not in the official MCP registry', which implicitly separates it from the listing/report siblings. It never names a sibling (e.g. claim_mcp_server or my_server_report) explicitly, so an agent still has to infer which of the related server tools applies.

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?

Clear triggering conditions are given: 'Use this when someone has built or runs an MCP server that is not in the official MCP registry... or asks how to get their server listed.' That covers the when. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to the alternative (claim_mcp_server) for servers already listed.

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