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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond these by adding deterministic behavior: 'it answers only from the published registry and rate card, so it cannot invent a capability, a kit or a price.' It also reveals what the response contains (matching reasons, costs, build plan). No contradiction with 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?

The content is mostly concise, but the sentence 'Use this when someone says what they want rather than which capability they want' appears twice verbatim, wasting a sentence. The first sentence is front-loaded and effective, but the duplication is a clear structural flaw.

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?

The description covers the trigger condition, the outputs, and the deterministic grounding, which gives an agent enough to decide when to invoke the tool. There is no output schema to lean on, so listing the response components (Launch Kits, capabilities, why matched, cost, build plan) is valuable. It could mention what happens with the optional launch_kit parameter, but that is a secondary gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds slight nuance for the intent parameter ('in their words') but says nothing about the optional launch_kit parameter beyond the schema. It does not actively mislead, but it also does not enrich the parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific use case: 'Use this when someone says what they want rather than which capability they want.' It names the exact resource (Launch Kits and capabilities) and the outputs (matched items, why each matched, unit cost, build plan). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like trustycap_get_launch_kit or trustycap_list_capabilities.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this when someone says what they want rather than which capability they want.' It gives a clear condition and implies that other tools are for when a specific capability is known, but it does not name alternatives or list exclusions. The repetition of the same sentence adds no new guidance.

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