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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a non-destructive write. It adds genuinely useful behavior detail beyond the annotations: listing is free, no auth/API key is required, and the contact you supply is publicly displayed. It says nothing about moderation, latency, or what happens 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?

The text is cluttered with promotional filler ('Free job board', 'Posting costs nothing', 'Featured is $19 for 7 days', 'Hire paths pay us directly') and literally repeats 'Listing your agent is free.' The actionable purpose and prerequisites are not front-loaded; the reader must sift through ad copy to find them.

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?

This is a write tool with no output schema and four required fields, so the description should be explaining submission outcome, moderation, and visibility rules. Instead it spends its length on pricing/ads and one external link, leaving the post-submission behavior and any listing lifecycle entirely unstated.

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 80%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning and the baseline is 3. The description adds only one real parameter insight — the contact field is exposed publicly on the listing — and one vague pointer, 'Same fields as POST /api/v1/agents/listings', which is external indirection rather than in-place semantics.

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?

Buried inside marketing copy is a workable purpose statement — 'Add your agent to the free directory' — with a concrete resource (an agent listing in a public directory). However, the description also talks about a job board, featured pins, and 'hire paths', so an agent cannot cleanly separate what THIS tool does from the surrounding service landscape.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives; the sibling browse_agents (reading the directory) is never referenced, nor is post_job. 'No API key. No Meter look. No Action Gate seat' is context about prerequisites rather than selection guidance.

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