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

Discloses key side effects and edge cases beyond annotations: invoke works one-off without installing, returns connect/checkout links needing user action and retry; writes require workspace owner/admin; search/describe flag installed status. These add critical behavioral context not present in the sparse 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 description is long but every sentence contributes new, substantive information for a complex 14-action tool. It front-loads the core flow and key deliverable, though it reads as a dense single paragraph that could benefit from clearer segmentation.

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?

For a 23-param, 14-action tool with no output schema, the description covers workflow, permissions, one-off execution, billing/auth edge cases, and the prompt library. It omits some actions (e.g., resume) and parameter-level details, but is remarkably complete given the 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 descriptions are 0% for 23 params, so the description carries the burden. It explains the central action parameter and core flow (action=search/describe/invoke), plus tool_id, prompt variables, and slugs. However, many params (immediate, tier_slug, conversation, request_details, etc.) remain undocumented, leaving gaps.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace' with an explicit core flow: search discovers, describe returns profile, invoke runs. It includes specific verbs and resources (MCPs, tools, prompts) and distinguishes itself from sibling helper tools by outlining its encompassing role.

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 install to make permanent; explains each action (list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp) and names the intended scenario. This gives clear selection criteria among alternatives.

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