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

With only basic annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description carries the transparency burden and excels. It discloses that 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente, without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list.' It also explains returned connect/checkout links, permission requirements ('Writes... require workspace owner/admin'), and installed flags. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses visual labels like 'Core flow:' and 'KEY:' to structure the key information. Every sentence provides meaningful content, and the length is justified given the 14 actions and multiple edge cases. Minor deduction for lack of formal structure (bullets/headings) that would improve scannability.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return behaviors for key actions (e.g., invoke returns a connect link or checkout link, describe returns the full profile, publish_prompt returns a shareable link). It covers permissions, installed status flags, billing, prompt library differences, and the distinction between one-off invoke and permanent install. This is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 0% with 23 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the central 'action' values and how mcp_id, tool_id, and arguments work together in the search → describe → invoke flow. It also explains prompt-related parameters (prompt_slug, prompt_body, prompt_vars, prompt_targets) through search_prompts/get_prompt/publish_prompt. However, several parameters remain unexplained (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, etc.), so it does not fully cover the schema.

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 it is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' This clearly identifies the resource and primary functions (search, describe, invoke, install), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cnpj_consultar which are specific MCPs. It also differentiates itself by covering both MCP 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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use each action: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also explains the conditions for connecting/credential links and wallet top-up, and notes 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits.' This goes far beyond a generic usage hint.

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