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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds that outputs are 'marketplace-safe' and that service/premium tiers include 'readiness evidence,' which is meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences front-load the primary action and output list, then input guidance, then tier pricing. Every clause carries information with no filler, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 11-parameter schema with full descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, inputs, and tier differentiation. It doesn't detail every parameter, but that is appropriately delegated to the schema; the only minor gap is an explicit link to sibling validation tools.

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 has 100% parameter coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting key parameters (target, product_name, audience, primary_use_case, marketplace_url, paid_path) and linking them to tier behavior, helping the agent understand how parameters are used together.

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?

Description states a specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'marketplace-safe launch assets' with an enumerated list of outputs (listing copy, buyer FAQ, checklist, approval packet, claim boundaries). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that check, scan, or probe.

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?

Provides clear usage context: pass target plus optional parameters, and select a tier. It implies when to use (for sellers creating launch packs) and mentions tier-specific behavior, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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