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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing a result cap ('at most 10 summaries of each kind') and the public/active filtering constraint. It stops short of saying how results are ordered or matched.

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, zero filler, with the capability stated first and the result-size constraint immediately after. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it only partly does: it says summaries are returned capped at 10 per kind but not what a 'summary' contains or whether the three kinds come back together. For a one-parameter search tool this is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent composing a call.

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 schema has 0% description coverage on the sole parameter 'q', so the description carries the full burden and fails it: nothing explains what q matches against (products, categories, tags, or all three), whether it is free text or a prefix, or how the 1-100 character constraint behaves. The reader must infer that it is a search query.

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 ('Search') and three concrete resources (public BetterLaunch products, active categories, tags), which is more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the close siblings list_products/list_categories/list_tags, leaving the search-vs-list distinction implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the keyword 'Search' plus 'public'/'active' hints that this is a query-driven lookup rather than an enumeration, suggesting list_products et al. as the alternative. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named.

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