SubmitCheck launch directories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data provenance and freshness ('live check of 516 directories in Oct 2026'), which signals the result may be a dated snapshot, but it says nothing about whether results are cached, how redirect targets are reported, or any rate/permission constraints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core operation and its three outcomes come first. The trailing provenance clause is slightly awkwardly worded but still earns its place by conveying data currency.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must sketch the return value, and it does enumerate the three possible states (live/dead/redirects). For a one-parameter status lookup this is nearly complete, with only the redirect target detail and freshness caveats left implicit.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It partly does by giving a concrete example ('e.g. betapage.co'), clarifying that a bare domain string is expected, but it adds no detail on format edge cases (scheme, www, subdomains).

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 ('check whether') and resource ('launch directory domain') and enumerates the possible outcomes (live, dead, redirects elsewhere). It is distinguishable from find_launch_directories by implication (checking a known domain vs. finding one), though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: you supply a domain you already know about and get its status, versus searching for directories. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing guidance pointing to find_launch_directories, so the agent must infer the split.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses data freshness ('checked Oct 2026'), the per-listing cost statuses, and a result cap of 10 on the free tier, but says nothing about what happens beyond 10 matches, result ordering, or any auth/rate-limit behavior.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core action and append return shape and the free-tier cap. Slightly dense with parentheticals ('checked Oct 2026', '(free tier)'), but no wasted sentences.

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, all-optional search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does sketch the return contents (submit URL, cost status, up to 10 results), but omits result ordering, truncation behavior beyond the cap, and the other per-listing fields an agent would want before calling it.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by spelling out the meaning of the free-status values ('free only with a badge, queued, or paid') that the schema enum only names cryptically as yes/yes-backlink/queue/no. The category and no_account parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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 (Find) and resource (launch directories), plus scope qualifiers ('live', 'checked Oct 2026', 'that fit a product'), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling check_launch_directory by name, leaving the find-vs-check boundary to inference.

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?

'That fit a product' and 'Returns up to 10 (free tier)' imply a discovery use case and hint at a result cap, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of when to prefer check_launch_directory instead. Usage is implied, not stated.

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