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

Annotations already declare the operation is non-destructive, open-world, and idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: a 7-day observation window with checks every 6 hours, a 90% uptime bar, tool stability and description requirements, the fact that placement cannot be bought, that it is free, and what it returns (status page plus optional owner-verification token).

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 usage trigger, then moves through input handling, acceptance criteria, and outputs in a logical order. Four sentences with almost no waste, though the trust-related clauses ('Placement cannot be bought', 'No charge') are two statements doing similar work.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description says what is returned (status page, optional owner-verification token). Combined with the acceptance criteria, timing, and cost, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly against a fully documented six-parameter schema.

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 all six parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description adds genuine meaning for `url` by explaining that a bare business domain is acceptable and that the usual endpoint paths will be probed — behavior the schema does not state.

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 onto the 7Maps map that agents use to choose servers — and makes the audience and outcome explicit. It is trivially distinguishable from every sibling, which are all check_*, report_*, or list_* tools.

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 triggering condition: use when someone has built or runs an MCP server not in the official registry and wants agents to find it, or asks how to get listed. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one, but no sibling overlaps this submission flow.

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