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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it is deterministic, draws only from the published registry and rate card, and explicitly cannot fabricate a capability, composition, or price. It also previews the response contents (matches, reasons, unit cost, actionable build plan).

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 core content is front-loaded and each clause earns its place, but the sentence 'Use this when someone says what they want rather than which capability they want' is repeated verbatim, which is pure redundancy in a short description. That duplication is the main structural defect.

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 it does so: matched compositions/capabilities, why each matched, unit cost at published prices, and a build plan. Two parameters are fully schema-documented and annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is nearly self-sufficient; only the launch_kit param and any cost/units caveats go unaddressed.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the meaning of intent (say what the human is trying to build, in their words) but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail, and the launch_kit parameter is never mentioned in the description at all.

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 names a specific verb-plus-resource operation: take a natural-language intent and return matching published compositions/capabilities, the match rationale, unit cost, and a build plan. It also carves out a distinguishing trigger (intent in the user's words vs. naming a capability id), which separates it from the list_* siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives a clear selection condition: use it when someone describes what they want to build rather than which capability they want, and the launch_kit parameter is positioned as a way to skip the recommendation step. It never names an explicit alternative (route_build, list_capabilities) or a when-not-to-use case, so no exclusion guidance.

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