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

Discloses key behaviors not captured in annotations: invoke works without installation, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and write actions require workspace owner/admin. Also explains installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. Annotations only say openWorldHint, so this adds substantial 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 a single dense paragraph covering many flows; while information-rich, it would benefit from structuring (e.g., bullets) and removes the Portuguese 'pontualmente' which could confuse. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes a wall of text.

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 covers the main use cases (search/describe/invoke, install/uninstall/subscribe, prompt library) and edge cases (connect link, checkout link, permissions). However, some actions like 'resume' are not mentioned, and there's no detailed return value documentation beyond the link behaviors.

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 description coverage, the description explains the primary action parameter and core workflow parameters (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) but leaves many parameters (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_targets, etc.) unexplained. It covers prompt-related fields but not all, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 defines marketplace as the official mcp.ai catalog and execution platform, with a detailed core flow (search→describe→invoke). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering the full lifecycle of finding, running, and managing MCPs plus the prompt library.

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 distinguishes when to use invoke vs install: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. Provides a core flow with action values and explains credential/payment handling with retry instructions.

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