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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the two-step file-based verification flow, that verifying does not change measurement/ranking, and that it is free. That disclosure of mechanism and side-effect scope is exactly what the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of 5 only because host/auth prerequisites are implied rather than stated.

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?

It is front-loaded with the when-to-use clause, then the mechanics, then the reassurance about ranking and cost. Every sentence contributes something, and there is no filler. It runs slightly long, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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 correctly compensates by explaining what the first call returns (a line of text for /.well-known/7maps-verify.txt) and the need to call again after placing the file. Combined with annotations that cover the safety profile, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly; only the precise confirmation semantics are left implicit.

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 both `server` and `note` with types, lengths, and constraints. The description's reference to 'add a short note for agents' echoes the note parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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+resource (verify ownership of an MCP server on 7Maps) and enumerates the concrete outcomes: owner-verified page, agent note, README badge. This is far more than a restatement of the name/title. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent submit_mcp_server sibling, leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: 'Use this when the person you work for owns or runs an MCP server that is on the 7Maps map...' and lays out the intended use cases (verified badge, agent note, status badge). It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it versus submit_mcp_server, so it stops short of a 5.

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