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

The annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and provide no details on side effects. The description adds key behaviors: invoke runs one-off without bloating the toolkit, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and 'Writes... require workspace owner/admin.' It also explains installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags, which goes well beyond annotations.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and the core flow is logically sequenced, but the description is a long unbroken paragraph with Portuguese 'pontualmente' and packed details that could benefit from bullet structure. Every sentence earns its place overall.

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 large action surface and no output schema, the description covers most operational aspects: auth requirements, payment flow, permanent vs one-off install, and the prompt library. However, it lacks explicit return formats/examples and leaves some parameters unexplained, which prevents a 5.

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 23 params and 0% schema coverage, the description carries the burden, and it does explain central params like action, tool_id, mcp_id, arguments, prompt_slug, request_details via the action walkthrough. However, many params remain undefined (immediate, tier_slug, conversation, prompt_targets, report_context, cancel_comment), so compensation is partial.

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 a specific purpose: 'the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them' and then details the core search→describe→invoke flow. It differentiates from siblings like authenticate/connect/report_bug by explaining marketplace as the catalog/runner, even noting report_bug is one of its actions.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use,' and states request_mcp 'asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits.' It also maps each action (list_tools, subscribe/cancel, search_prompts) to its scenario, providing a clear decision framework.

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