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

Discloses that invoke works without installation, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and notes writes require workspace owner/admin. This adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and covers side effects and permission requirements.

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 lacking bullet points, headings, or separation between the marketplace flow and prompt library sections. While information-dense and without fluff, the lack of structure hinders quick scanning for specific details.

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 covers the core workflow, auth/payment flows, permission requirements, and the prompt library, which is comprehensive for a complex tool. Yet it omits explanations for some actions like resume, cancel details, and does not fully clarify return formats or all parameter interactions.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining many parameters in context: action enum, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, tier_slug, prompt_* fields, etc. However, it does not systematically cover all 23 parameters, omitting details on limit, immediate, conversation, and report_context.

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 tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace, covering both catalog search and runtime execution. It lists distinct actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like report_bug and show_version by outlining its core flow.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and directs to search_prompts/get_prompt for prompt text. Also contrasts with list_tools for current callable tools and request_mcp for new builds.

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