What we really have here is two groups of people looking at a single thing (the directory) from two entirely different perspectives.
You want titles and descriptions on your client sites that will drive traffic to the sites. There is nothing wrong with that, you are just doing your job.
Our job, on the other hand, is to build a directory that (first and foremost) serves the prople who use the directory.
To an extent that makes us partners, and to an extent that puts us at cross-purposes.
If you have a client who has a site that contains unique information not found elsewhere on the web, then we are probably intersted in listing it. At a minimum, we'll take a look at it. We'll even let you suggest a title and a description. Once you have done that, in our minds, the partnership is concluded. You have done everything that we are willing to let you do.
Now, after some time passes (2 hours to more than two years) we will look at the site you suggested. We will look at the title, and in the off chance it complies with our guidelines, we will use it. Different parts of the directory have different guidelines, and we don't expect submitters to keep up with our internal minutia, so if we have to change it (and we usually do) we have to change it and there are no hard feelings.
The same thing with the descritption. We are looking for third-person descriptions that dispassionately describe (for the directory user) what they are likely to find on their site. We are not particuarly intersted in describing the company, its markets, its vision, its leadership, its strategic advantage, its chariman/founder or what is being served in the cafeteria today. We describe the website. We don't use exclaimation points. We avoid puffery (there go all the descriptive adjectives). We don't have a need to promote anything. This is where we are at cross purposes. We don't try to drive our directory sufers anywhere -- we think that, given good titles and descriptions, they can figure out where they want to go on their very own.
As an experiment, I've been keeping track of the URL updates that I process. While my sample size is still too small to be statistically valid, I can tell you that I approve (in all or part) fewer than 5% of all updates that are submitted. If someone is suggesting a title or description change, the percentage I accept is probably fewer than 2%. Looking at my coding sheet, the main reason for rejection is reason "#1 -- Attempted to keyword stuff title and/or description."
As an editor, I feel absolutely no obligation to let anyone who is not an editor presume to start trying to "tweak" the titles and descriptions in the categories where I am allowed to edit. Not would I expect any listed URL to allow me to start redesigning their websites.
Hope you find this perspective useful.
