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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: nothing is published as-submitted because appclap crawls the app's website and verifies facts first, which tells the agent the submission is a request rather than an immediate write. It does not address duplicate submissions or turnaround time, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action and the search_apps precondition front-loaded, followed by behavioral context and optional fields. Every sentence earns its place; the optional-fields sentence is mildly redundant with the schema but still useful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential agent needs: what gets submitted, the pre-check against search_apps, and that publication is gated on verification. Only minor gaps remain, such as duplicate-submission behavior and what the caller gets back.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, and the description's restatement of name/note/submitter_role largely duplicates it. It adds slight value by clarifying submitter_role ('creator' if the user made the app, 'sharing' otherwise), though the enum's third value, 'unsure', is never explained. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+channel: submit a web app to the appclap catalog by URL. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_apps by framing the tool as the action to take when search_apps shows the app is not yet listed.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use when the user built, released, or discovered a web app that search_apps shows is not yet listed') and names the sibling to consult first. It even calls out the edge case of small/brand-new apps, removing ambiguity about borderline submissions.

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