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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that nothing is published as-submitted and that appclap crawls and verifies the site, plus what the reply contains (claim instructions for creators). It does not state rate limits, duplicate-submission behavior, or whether a failed crawl is reported back, which keeps it below 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?

The core action and trigger come first, then optional fields and the email/claim instructions. It is on the long side and the email guidance is restated twice ('pass it on', 'pass it only if they give it'), which costs a bit of tightness but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it says what the reply contains (how to claim the listing, notification when live). For a non-idempotent, open-world submission tool, the verification behavior, optionality, and follow-up flow are all covered.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real decision guidance: only url is needed, name/note/role are optional, submitter_role means 'creator' only if the user made the app, and email must be offered and never invented. That is meaning beyond the field definitions, though it doesn't cover formats or edge cases for url.

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 (submit) and resource (a web app) and the destination catalog, with the key mechanism (by URL) front-loaded. It also names the sibling tool search_apps as the discovery counterpart, so an agent can separate submission from lookup without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit trigger: use when the user built, released, or discovered a web app that search_apps shows is not yet listed. That is a when-to-use condition plus an alternative (search first) and even a target audience (small/brand-new apps), leaving little to infer.

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