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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description earns its place by disclosing exactly what the write is: with a directory it records the check and flips the submission to live. That side effect is valuable context not in the annotations. It stops short of describing failure behavior (link missing, page unreachable) or what the dofollow result looks like.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the core fetch-and-check behavior front-loaded before the conditional side effect. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 still conveys the two observable results (link present, dofollow yes/no) and the conditional write path. Minor gaps remain around return shape and error handling for unreachable pages, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 67%, and the description compensates for the weakest parameter by explaining that 'directory' is not just a label but triggers recording and the live-marking side effect — meaningfully beyond the schema's 'to record the result'. 'product' and 'listing_url' semantics are left to the schema, which is acceptable since both are described/patterned there.

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 (opens a public listing page and checks its link) and even names the mechanism ('reads rel') and the dofollow criterion. An agent can distinguish this from verify_badge or match_directories without opening any 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it becomes clear the tool checks a listing after submission, and the 'With directory... marks the submission live' clause hints at the post-submission workflow. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools (verify_badge, list_submissions) that an agent must choose between.

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