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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: invoke runs MCPs without installation, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and writes require specific permissions. It also explains the prompt library flow, providing extensive operational context.

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 lengthy but every sentence adds value, covering the diverse action set. It is front-loaded with the core flow (search→describe→invoke) and structured by capabilities. It could be tightened but is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 23 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main flows and edge cases (auth, payment, permissions, prompt sharing). It does not detail exact return shapes but provides sufficient guidance for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 must explain parameters. It does so for core ones like action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related fields, but not exhaustively for all 23 params. It gives enough to understand the main workflows.

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 states the tool's purpose: it is the official marketplace for MCPs/tools, offering both discovery and execution. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing unique features like invoke-without-install and the prompt library, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each action, contrasting invoke vs install, listing_tools, subscribe/cancel, and others. It names alternatives (request_mcp when nothing fits) and clarifies prerequisites like workspace owner/admin for writes.

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