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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: each kit specifies capability ordering, cost per unit, and what the builder still owns. The explicit statement that a Launch Kit is a starting point, not a finished product, clarifies expectations and prevents misuse.

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 description is appropriately sized — four sentences, each adding distinct value. The core purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance appears mid-way, and caveats about ownership are succinct. There is no filler or repetition of information already present in the title or annotations.

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?

Given the empty input schema, the read-only annotations, and the presence of sibling tools like trustycap_get_launch_kit and trustycap_list_native_kits, the description provides enough context for an agent to select this tool correctly. It explains what a Launch Kit is, when to use it, what information it conveys, and what it does not provide. The lack of an output schema is partly mitigated by describing the contents of each kit.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter-level semantics are inherently not a concern. The description compensates by explaining what the listed kits contain and what one unit costs to run, giving the agent useful context for interpreting the result. This exceeds the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing TrustyCap Launch Kits, defined as proven backend compositions a builder can start a business from. It distinguishes this from single-operation tools by emphasizing business-level scope. The verb 'List' and resource 'Launch Kits' are specific and match the tool name and title.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when someone describes a business they want to build rather than a single operation they want performed.' It also frames the Backend Launch Kit as the default answer for production readiness. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the contrast between whole-business and single-operation is a clear enough steering signal.

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