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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important implicit detail that the submission is about an app 'built with AI' and that a public proof post is part of the deal, but it says nothing about review, duplication, or what happens to the user's data after submission.

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 terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The embedded example earns its place, though it slightly blurs the boundary between required and optional fields since it omits any explanation of the payload shape.

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 six-parameter, open-world submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger but leaves out what the caller should expect afterwards (queued, reviewed, published, deduplicated). Adequate to invoke, incomplete for setting user expectations.

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 every field is already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The inline example helps show a minimal valid payload, but it only illustrates the three required fields and adds no semantics for tools, one_liner, or builder_name.

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 ('add their app ... to Vibe Shipped'), which is clearly a write/submission action distinct from the read-oriented siblings (get_app, search_apps, compare_tools). It could name the destination's nature (a public directory) more explicitly, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Use only when the user asks to add their app built with AI' gives an explicit trigger condition plus a restriction ('only'), which is stronger guidance than most sibling tools likely receive. It doesn't name an alternative, but no sibling covers this action.

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