Where to list each MCP

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful domain context by clarifying the catalog placement logic (docs vs spend, OpenAI docs-only), but it does not describe the exact return shape or any behavioral caveats. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The additional fact 'OpenAI is docs-only' is compact and directly useful. Slightly telegraphic style, but every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, annotated tool, the description communicates the core output. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify whether the response is a list, mapping, or config snippet, or how complete the coverage is. This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description still adds meaningful semantics about what kind of mapping the tool reports, even though there are no parameters to document.

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 states the tool's specific output: which directories should list the docs MCP versus the spend MCP, with the OpenAI docs-only exception. It is clearly distinct from siblings focused on facts, tier policy, URLs, and docs links. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' but the phrasing is 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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs to decide where to place each MCP in a catalog. However, the description gives no explicit direction about when to choose this tool over alternatives or whether any context/preconditions apply.

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