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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses key behaviors: confirming name/URL/tagline with the user, auto-verifying the link before publishing, placing new submissions in a review queue, and prohibiting fabricated descriptions. This goes far beyond a basic purpose statement.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: purpose, usage triggers, and validation/confirmation rules. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main flow (registering, handling existing entries, validation, and review) but does not describe the exact return format or error handling. Given the moderate complexity (7 parameters) and lack of output schema, it is sufficient for invocation but could be enhanced with response details.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral semantics by specifying that certain parameters (name, URL, tagline) are confirmed with the user and that the description field must only contain user-provided information, guiding the agent on how to populate these fields correctly.

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?

The description clearly states the tool registers a SaaS to the saaskr directory ('saaskr 디렉토리에 등록한다'), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by describing handling of both existing and new services, which is not covered by compare/get/list/search tools.

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?

The description provides explicit trigger phrases ('내 서비스 등록해줘', 'saaskr에 올려줘') and outlines the two main scenarios (existing vs. new). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for other actions, so while usage context is clear, it could be stronger by directly excluding sibling tools.

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