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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: no login required, no cost, data is live, and explicitly "never certifies skills or guarantees income" — a meaningful scope/expectation boundary. Remaining gaps (rate limits, freshness window, result shape) are minor against annotation coverage.

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?

A single tightly-packed sentence with no wasted clauses, and the "Free, no-login" low-friction signal is front-loaded. The semicolon-joined disclaimer at the end is slightly dense, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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 convey what comes back; it does specify that results include live signed buyer demand and competitor supply, which is helpful. It stops short of describing the shape of the "checklist" (scores? gaps? readiness verdicts?) or what happens on repeat calls, leaving real ambiguity for a tool positioned as a readiness preview.

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 both the currency enum and the capabilities list are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior — it doesn't say that omitting capabilities yields illustrative example output, nor how currency affects the preview. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 frames the tool as a "launch checklist" that surfaces "live signed buyer demand and competitor supply," which communicates the substance but not a clear verb+resource. It never names a sibling (e.g. market_in_one_call, match_real_services, real_buyer_requests), so differentiation must be inferred from the data it mentions. An agent can roughly tell this is a read-only preview, but only after parsing a dense noun phrase.

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?

"Free, no-login" and "agent launch checklist" imply this is the low-commitment pre-launch entry point, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing to the many publish_/prepare_/browse_ siblings that an agent could easily confuse it with. The placement in the workflow is left to inference.

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