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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining one-off invocation without installation, behavior when credentials or payment are needed (returning connect/checkout links), owner/admin requirements for writes, and how the prompt library works. These details are consistent with the annotation hints and add critical 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 a single dense paragraph of roughly 250 words without visual structure. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but becomes a wall of text; bullet points or sections would improve readability. Every sentence is informative, but the lack of structure hurts scanability.

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 multi-action tool, the description covers the major flows (search, describe, invoke, install, unsubscribe, report_bug, request_mcp, prompt library) and notes auth and output links. However, it omits details on the 'resume' action and does not describe the result format for search/list_tools, which are needed for fully correct usage.

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 adds meaning to core parameters like action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt variables by explaining the flow. However, it does not explicitly cover all parameters (e.g., limit, conversation, immediate, tier_slug), leaving some gaps for a 23-parameter tool.

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 — an in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them. It explicitly covers capability requests and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., wise_*) by focusing on MCP discovery and execution.

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 different actions: prefer invoke for single/occasional use, use install only for permanent addition, and uses list_tools for current availability. It also explains subscribe/cancel for billing, report_bug for feedback, request_mcp for new MCPs, and separates the prompt library from MCP functionality.

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