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

Discloses key runtime behaviors beyond annotations: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, writes require workspace owner/admin, and prompt links open without login. Annotations only say readOnly=false, openWorld=true, so this context is valuable and non-contradictory.

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 logically organized (definition → core flow → invoke behavior → install guidance → other actions → prompt library) and nearly every sentence adds value. It loses half a point for the non-standard word 'pontualmente' and mild redundancy around not bloating the tool list.

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 the large action surface and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, permissions, auth/payment edge cases, and distinct prompt-library actions, giving an agent enough context to select and invoke the correct action.

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 enum values and mapping mcp_id/tool_id/arguments to the search-describe-invoke flow, plus prompt-library parameters. However, several params including immediate, tier_slug, conversation, and report_context remain unexplained, leaving gaps for a 23-param 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 'official mcp.ai marketplace — in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them', clearly identifying the resource and verb. It outlines the core search-describe-invoke flow and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like report_bug and the openfinance family.

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 tells the agent when to use invoke vs install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT') and covers alternatives like request_mcp for missing MCPs, list_tools for currently callable tools, and subscribe/cancel for billing.

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