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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the returned content (workflow, costs, contract) and the contract's surface classification, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like response size, pagination, or error behavior. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate – it adds some value but not beyond what is already known.

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 informative but contains redundancy: the sentence 'Read this before writing or changing code against a kit.' repeats the opening instruction 'Use this before writing or changing code against a kit.' This duplication wastes space. The rest is structured logically, but the repetition and verbosity prevent a higher score.

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 simple parameter set and lack of an output schema, the description is comprehensive. It details what the tool returns (workflow, costs, checklist, contract) and explains the contract's classifications, which helps an agent understand the full value. It lacks only minor details like error handling, but for a read-only retrieval tool, this is adequate. A 4 reflects the thoroughness.

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 sole parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema with an example ('vehicle-finance'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 3 is correct.

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 retrieves a complete Launch Kit, enumerating its contents (workflow, costs, checklist, contract). It differentiates from list_launch_kits by focusing on a single kit's full details, not a listing. The verb 'get' and resource 'Launch Kit' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before writing or changing code against a kit' and repeats the guidance, giving a clear when-to-use context. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions, but the sibling list includes list_launch_kits, implying a distinction. The guidance is practical and unambiguous.

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