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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with the crucial fact that nothing is submitted and the founder performs the actual submission and payment. This is the key behavioral distinction an agent needs and it would not be inferable from the annotations alone. It omits secondary traits such as link expiry or reuse, which is a minor gap.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: what is returned, what is not done and who does it, and the already-listed fallback. The scope statement is front-loaded and there is no 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 and no annotations covering returns, the description correctly carries the burden by describing both possible outcomes: a prefilled link, or the existing listing plus claim instructions. It does not say anything about the link's lifetime or whether prefilled fields can be edited before submission, which are the remaining unknowns for a 7-parameter tool.

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 71%, so most parameters already carry their own documentation and the baseline is 3. The description only says the form is 'prefilled with the details you pass' without adding per-parameter meaning, and it does not compensate for the two undocumented fields (name, category). Adequate, but not additive.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'returns a link to the submit form prefilled with the details you pass', plus the fallback case where the site is already listed. That is specific enough to know exactly what comes back. It does not name the closely related sibling check_listing, which appears to overlap with the 'already listed' branch, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Opens with the triggering situation ('For a founder who wants their tool on EveryAI'), which gives the agent a clear context for use. It also explains who completes the final action, so the agent knows this tool is a preparation step, not the submission itself. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to check_listing or search_tools instead when they only want to verify an existing listing.

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