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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, but the description adds genuinely new traits: it refuses to compose anything the supplied platform already provides, it will not invent a unit price, it prices each meter, and it returns what was left out and why. That is rich, non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage condition, then proceeds to behavior and pricing. Four dense sentences with no filler, though the pricing sentence is information-packed enough that it could be split for clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, which it does: a composed kit with real prices and an install path, plus a list of exclusions and reasons. Completeness is strong, with only minor gaps around output format specifics.

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 real meaning: 'platform' triggers a refusal behavior, and 'capabilities' is an alternative to 'intent' for composing exact picks. This clarifies the interaction between parameters rather than restating them.

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 (compose) and resource (kit) scoped to 'a business nobody has composed,' which cleanly separates it from the published Launch Kit siblings like trustycap_get_launch_kit. An agent can identify the operation and its niche without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('when what your human is building is not one of the published Launch Kits') and by implication routes published-kit cases to trustycap_get_launch_kit. It also clarifies the two invocation modes: a natural-language sentence versus capability ids to compose exactly what was picked.

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