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

Annotations already declare the safe/read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds real behavioral context: it refuses to compose capabilities the platform already supplies, never invents unit prices, prices each meter, and returns an explicit omitted-and-why list. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 usage cue is front-loaded, which is good, but the prose is dense and run-on, especially the trailing sentence about unit prices and arithmetic. Several clauses could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so: composed capabilities, real prices, install path, and an omission list. Inputs and refusal behavior are covered; only tie-breaking against sibling tools is absent.

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 mode semantics: intent is the human's sentence, capabilities switches to exact-id composition instead of sentence matching, and platform triggers the exclusion rule. That is genuine added meaning over the schema text.

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+resource: take a business description and return the composed capabilities with prices and an install path. It differentiates itself from siblings like list_capabilities and get_launch_kit by describing composition and pricing output, not enumeration.

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?

"Use this when your human describes a business" plus two explicit modes (pass platform to exclude what it already supplies; pass capability ids to compose exactly what you picked) give clear invocation context. However it names no sibling alternative or when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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