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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: the hub verifies submissions by crawling and 'nothing in the submission is trusted.' It does not describe the response or failure modes, but the key trust model is clearly stated.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the verification caveat is relevant and 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?

The core action and verification behavior are covered, but the description lacks information about return values, prerequisites, and how this relates to sibling tools such as verify_domain or register_validator. It is usable but not fully self-contained.

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 input schema has no descriptions for url or kind, so the description must compensate. It adds context for url by listing accepted URL types, but it never explains the kind parameter or the a2a/mcp enum, and the mention of 'domain' creates ambiguity about how it maps to kind.

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 opens with a concrete action and resource: 'Submit an agent card URL, MCP endpoint or domain for indexing.' It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like register_validator or verify_domain.

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 implies the tool is for submitting agent-related URLs for indexing, but it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention prerequisites. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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