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

Annotations already mark idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: auto-detection of declarative vs. code-bundle drafts, the pending_review state, the mandatory admin review and security scan, the two-call slug-confirmation protocol, and the permanent URL semantics. These details go well beyond the annotations and give an agent a clear model of what actually happens.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and outcome, then flows through parameters and the slug-confirmation protocol. It is dense and somewhat repetitive ('web wizard', 'PERMANENT', 'never change') but each sentence carries operational value. It could be better with paragraph breaks or bullets, yet it remains well-organized for its complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, two-step slug flow, conditional price fields, attestations) the description covers the essential workflow entirely: what to pass, what must be true, the two-call slug acknowledgment, the admin review/security scan outcome, and the thumbnail restriction. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required here, and no critical behavioral gap remains.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the prose adds meaningful semantics: confirm_original and confirm_not_prohibited are described as attestations that must both be true 'exactly like the web wizard's checkboxes'; confirm_slug's two-step acknowledgment flow is clarified; price_type/price_cents defaults and max are reinforced; thumbnail_url's hosting restriction is called out. This goes beyond the schema, though not every parameter (e.g., llms) gets additional nuance.

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 states the tool submits a draft listing for review and is 'the final step' of the submission flow, with a specific outcome (flips to pending_review, not published). It references sibling draft-creation tools (findagent_create_draft / findagent_create_code_draft) to clarify its input, but it never explicitly names or contrasts itself with findagent_submission_wizard or other submission-related siblings, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 gives strong contextual guidance: use it after creating a draft via the named draft tools, call it first without confirm_slug to retrieve the permanent slug, then re-call with confirm_slug set to that slug. It also explains required confirmations and the pending_review vs. published distinction. However, it does not state explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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