IndieStack

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: the submission requires team review before going live and that listing is free. However, it omits idempotency details, rate limits, or specific side effects beyond the review queue.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage timing, trigger phrases, and parameter documentation. Every sentence serves a distinct function. The Args block uses consistent formatting and provides specific examples without verbosity.

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?

Given 7 parameters with zero schema coverage, the description successfully documents all inputs via the Args section. Since an output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details. The cross-reference to list_categories() demonstrates awareness of the tool ecosystem.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description comprehensively compensates via the Args section. It documents all 7 parameters with examples (e.g., 'Plausible Analytics'), format constraints (e.g., 'max 100 chars', 'comma-separated'), and cross-references to sibling tools for valid category slugs.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Submit'), clear resource ('developer tool'), and destination ('IndieStack'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling discovery tools like browse_new_tools or find_tools. The scope ('so AI agents and developers can discover it') clarifies the end goal.

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?

Provides explicit temporal guidance ('Use this after the user builds...'), concrete trigger phrases ('I just built X', 'I made Y'), and references a prerequisite sibling action ('Use list_categories() to see valid slugs'). The review process note sets correct expectations.

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