submit_for_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful behavioral context by saying this is a submission action and returns a listing URL plus initial checks, implying a verification workflow. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as duplicate submissions, resubmission rules, or whether the listing is immediately visible.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and target, the second states the result. There is no redundant language or repetition of schema content.

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 gives the essential return information and the schema covers the eight required parameters. Still, the description does not explain the verification stage after submission, what the 'initial checks' include, or any prerequisites for the endpoint schema being submitted.

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 high (88%), so the input schema already documents most parameter meanings. The description adds the x402 endpoint context but does not explain any schema fields beyond what is already present. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Submit' with a clear resource ('new x402 endpoint/service to ClearedIndex for trust verification') and states the return value ('listing URL and initial checks'). It is immediately distinguishable from the surrounding read/check/status sibling 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?

Phrases like 'Submit a new' and 'for trust verification' clearly signal when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly name read-only alternatives or exclusions, but the submission intent is clear enough that an agent can select it without confusion.

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