1
Functionality
Documented capabilities and fit for the stated use case
Evidence considered
- Feature coverage in official product material
- Official documentation or attributed reliability signals
- Documented use-case fit
Evidence Scope
Tool Selection Standards
These standards describe qualitative editorial review where it is performed. They do not mean every directory listing received the same hands-on test, score, or editorial endorsement.
Multiple Inputs
Tool records can come from editorial discovery and submissions
Source-Based by Default
Public product pages, documentation, and attributed sources
Separate Outcomes
Listing, paid plan, featured placement, and rank are distinct
Five Editorial Review Dimensions
These are qualitative prompts used where relevant, not fixed weights or a universal passing threshold.
2
User Experience
Available evidence about interface, workflow, and learning effort
Evidence considered
- Documented interface evidence
- Documented workflow evidence
- Published onboarding and learning resources
3
Innovation
Documented differentiation from relevant alternatives
Evidence considered
- Documented technical approach
- Publicly described differentiation
- Stated value proposition
4
Value for Money
Current public pricing context and feature alignment
Evidence considered
- Published pricing context
- Documented feature-to-price alignment
- Published free-plan limits
5
User Feedback
Available user feedback and ToolWorthy engagement signals
Evidence considered
- Attributed public user feedback
- ToolWorthy favorites or listing visits where available
- Repeated complaint and limitation themes
Our Selection Process
A source-aware editorial path whose depth varies by listing and content type
1
📝
Discovery or Submission
1
Identify a tool record through editorial discovery or a submitted listing
Key Steps:
- Market research and tool discovery
- Basic product and URL checks
- Category classification
Output: Candidates identified
2
⚙️
Source Review
2
Review public product material and other attributed evidence available for the claim
Key Steps:
- Official product page or documentation review
- Use-case and public pricing review
- Known limitation and source-boundary review
Output: Sourced notes or listing fields
3
📊
Editorial Decision
3
Choose the appropriate outcome without inventing a universal score
Key Steps:
- Decide whether and how to publish
- Separate factual fields from editorial judgment
- Identify missing or time-sensitive evidence
Output: Listing, revision, rejection, or editorial placement decision
4
🚀
Publication
4
Publish the approved outcome; ranking requires a separate explicit category order
Key Steps:
- Create or update the public record
- Apply approved plan labels or placement benefits where relevant
- Publish category order only when explicitly configured
Output: Public listing, content update, placement, or ranking entry
Process Summary
Varies
Review Duration
Documented
Selection Criteria
Editorial
Review Ownership
Ranking Is a Separate Publication Step
A listed tool appears in a configured category ranking only when it is explicitly included in that published order. Paid plans can also provide stated placement benefits after approval.
Learn about our ranking methodology