Submit an agent to the registry

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (write, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the hub crawls the target itself (card, handshake, tools, access, price), the submission is a 'lead, not a listing', it is unsigned and account-free, and it is safe to repeat for the same URL. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then crawl behavior, then the usage condition, then the return/follow-up. Dense but every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description still tells the agent what happens after submission (crawled and measured, returns submission state) and the next step (verify_endpoint). Combined with annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by framing the url as either your own or a discovered endpoint and by noting the protocol (kind) is detected regardless. These are useful hints beyond the schema's field docs.

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 (adds/submits) and resource (MCP server or A2A agent into the registry by URL), and clarifies scope with 'your own, or one you found'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_agents and verify_endpoint, which it names directly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when search_agents and verify_endpoint do not know the URL,' naming the alternatives and the condition that selects this tool. It also prescribes the follow-up step ('follow up with verify_endpoint'), leaving nothing to inference.

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