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

Despite annotations already indicating non-read-only and open-world behavior, the description adds critical context: invoke runs tools one-off without registering, returns connect/checkout links in specific scenarios, requires owner/admin for writes, and describes the retry flow. These behavioral details go well beyond the annotations and help the agent anticipate side effects.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it packs multiple ideas into long sentences and includes shorthand like 'pontualmente' without immediate explanation. Still, every sentence provides value and the structure follows the search-to-invoke flow.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the main workflow and key constraints, including auth, billing, and the prompt library. But it omits several enum actions like 'resume' and doesn't mention the meaning of 'limit' or 'immediate,' so a few branches remain under-specified.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining the central 'action' parameter and key values like tool_id, prompt_vars, and prompt_slug. However, many parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, conversation) receive no explanation, leaving a gap for a 23-parameter tool.

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 opens with 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' establishing a specific verb+resource. It further details the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect by being the central catalog and execution hub.

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?

The description explicitly advises 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT,' giving clear selection criteria. It also explains when to use list_tools ('lists what is callable right now') and distinguishes billing actions, providing actionable alternatives and scenarios.

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