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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful output-adjacent context: each kit names required capabilities, their order, cost per unit, and what the builder owns. It also clarifies product boundaries by stating the brand, customer, pricing, and business model remain the builder's responsibility.

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 front-loaded with a strong usage signal, but it repeats the sentence 'Use this when someone describes a business they want to build rather than a single operation they want performed' twice verbatim. That redundancy wastes space and detracts from an otherwise focused description.

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?

For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it says when to invoke it, what a Launch Kit is, what information each kit conveys, and what it does not provide. An agent has enough to select and call the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description appropriately spends no space on parameter details and instead explains the content of the returned launching kits, which is the only meaningful semantic information an agent needs.

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 specifies the tool's scope: listing proven backend compositions for someone building a whole business, not performing a single operation. It explicitly contrasts with operation-level tools and signals the resource type (Launch Kits) and what makes them distinct from one-off tasks.

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 condition: use when a user describes a business to build and needs a whole backend. It also states that a Launch Kit is a starting point, not a finished product, which helps set expectations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like native kits or capabilities, but the 'rather than a single operation' phrasing effectively excludes them.

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