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

Annotations cover safety (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds substantial value: the validation pipeline (live HTTPS, not parked, not redirecting), the async queue for UCP/WebMCP/MCP checks, dataset visibility with source=submitted, and rate limiting. Doesn't say what a caller observes on rejection or how to track queued items.

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?

Dense but every clause adds operational information (validation rules, queued checks, rate limit) with no filler. Slightly packed for a single paragraph.

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 3-param submission tool with no output schema, the description covers validation behavior, the async follow-up process, dataset provenance, and cost/auth constraints. Missing only error/rejection semantics and any mention of the category parameter.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies url vs hosts cardinality (max 50) which the schema does show, but says nothing about the 'category' enum parameter or its allowed values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add stores to ARC's free, open agent-commerce directory') and distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like find_agent_ready_stores by being the submission entry point.

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?

Explains the url vs hosts alternative clearly ('Pass url for one store or hosts for up to 50') and clarifies no login/model calls are needed, but doesn't state when NOT to use this versus e.g. precheck or validate_ucp_profile.

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