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

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: invoke works without installation, returns connect/checkout links when auth/payment needed, and writes require owner/admin. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, consistent with the description's mention of writes.

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 long but highly structured, front-loaded with the core flow and then covering prompt library and permissions. It is dense with useful details and has minimal filler, though the length is substantial.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (23 params, 14 actions) and lack of output schema, the description covers all major flows, edge cases (credential/payment), and permission requirements. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the action enum and the purpose of core parameters (query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_slug, etc.). However, some parameters like immediate, conversation, and cancel_reason remain unexplained, leaving minor gaps.

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 clearly identifies the marketplace as the in-platform catalog of MCPs and the way to run them, with a specific core flow (search → describe → invoke). It distinguishes itself from siblings like openfinance_* by being a meta-tool for discovery and execution.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use each action (e.g., 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), and contrasts with alternatives like list_tools. Also mentions owner/admin requirement for writes.

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