submit_listing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool submits a listing (a mutation) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or what the return value indicates. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 description is very concise: one sentence plus a brief note on cost. It front-loads the purpose and required parameters. However, it could be more structured with sections for clarity.

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 the tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the directory-specific behavior, what constitutes a valid entity, and the result of submission. The current description is too brief to be fully actionable.

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 50%, and the description adds no new meaning beyond naming the required fields. It does not explain what 'entity' or 'contact_email' represent or how they are used, leaving ambiguity.

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 clearly states the action ('Submit a listing') and the resource ('BCA directory'), with examples of directories (vcs, aggregators, trading-bots). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_vcs which retrieve listings.

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 description explicitly lists required parameters and notes the cost difference ('Free to call, paid to feature'). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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