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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the verification gate (MCP initialize handshake for endpoints, parsable manifest for domains), the 30-day review window for free submissions, and the 5 USDC x402 cost plus immediate-listing effect of `priority`. The annotations only tell the agent this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write; the description supplies the actual consequences.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and the parameter choice, then verification, then pricing. The 'Nothing is taken on trust' sentence is slightly rhetorical but does communicate that failed verification blocks indexing, so it mostly earns its place.

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 covers what gets checked, how long free review takes, and the paid fast path. It stops short of saying what the tool returns on submission (listing identifier, verification failure response), which is the only material gap for a create-style 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the prose adds real meaning: the endpoint must survive an initialize handshake, the domain must resolve /.well-known/ard.json and parse, and priority swaps review latency for a 5 USDC charge. That is semantic value beyond the schema's example strings.

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 and resource: adds an MCP server endpoint or ARD domain to the index so other agents can discover it. The two accepted resource kinds are named explicitly, which cleanly separates it from the read-only siblings find_resource, find_tool, and registry_stats.

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 clear selection logic: use `endpoint` for an MCP server URL, `domain` for a site serving an ARD manifest, and `priority=true` when you want paid immediate listing instead of the 30-day review. It does not explicitly contrast against the sibling lookup tools, but the when-to-use context is unambiguous.

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