directory_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it: it does not disclose whether submissions are reviewed/moderated, how long listing takes, whether the listing is public, or whether an activation step (sibling directory_activate) is required afterward. It only implies a public, free listing, which is thin for a write/submission operation.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, but the duplicated '(free) (free)' is wasted text and the brevity comes at the cost of omitting anything useful about the submission flow.

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 5-parameter submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what happens after submission and how it relates to the directory_status/activate siblings. None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the outcome of calling it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url, price, contact, category, and description, including the 'never shown publicly' note for contact. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (submit) and resource (x402 endpoint) plus the destination (curated directory), which is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like traffic_estimate or domain_rank. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely-named siblings directory, directory_status, and directory_activate, leaving the submission-vs-activation relationship unstated.

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 indication of when to call this versus the related directory/directory_status/directory_activate tools, nor any prerequisites such as the endpoint needing to be live and answering HTTP 402. The only eligibility clue lives in the URL parameter's schema text, not in the description.

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