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

The description reveals key behavioral nuances beyond annotations: invoke runs one-off without installing, returns connect/checkout links when needed, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It explains the 'retry' flow and the prompt library, adding operational detail the annotations lack.

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 longer than typical but well-structured, starting with the core value proposition and then systematically covering the flow, install vs. invoke, permissions, and the prompt library. It is front-loaded and organized, though a few phrases could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 complex tool with 23 parameters and 14 actions, the description covers the primary use cases, safety, and the prompt library, which is sufficient for initial selection. It does not detail return values (no output schema) or edge cases like pagination, but the overall guidance is substantial.

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 adds meaning for core parameters like action, mcp_id, tool_id, and arguments by explaining their role in the discover-describe-invoke flow. However, many secondary parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, etc.) remain undocumented, so it doesn't fully compensate for the empty schema.

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 marketplace as 'the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' with a specific core flow (search → describe → invoke). It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate or show_version by naming its own scope and 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?

The description explicitly guides when to use invoke vs install: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT.' It also covers capability requests, lists action categories, and notes permission requirements for writes.

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