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

The only behavioral statement, 'This tool is read-only', merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation, so it earns no credit. The phrase 'non-sensitive project characteristics' hints at an input-hygiene expectation, but nothing is said about what the recommendation consists of, how deterministic it is, or what the caller should do with the result.

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-loaded with the analysis-then-recommendation action and the scope of supported app types. The trailing 'This tool is read-only' sentence is redundant with annotations and is the one non-earning sentence.

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 usefully states the return is a product plus publication workflow recommendation, but it omits any explanation of the 11 optional defaults and which constraints actually steer the result. Adequate for the shape of the call, insufficient for using the parameters well.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. Only the appType dimension is partially reflected via the enumerated app types; runtime, needsCron, requiresRoot, hasDockerfile, needsDatabase, customTcpPorts, expectedTraffic, needsWebSockets, backgroundWorkers and persistentStorageGb are never explained or prioritized.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Analyze ... and recommend the smallest current DotMoose product and publication workflow', scoped to the app types it handles. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'recommend_product', leaving the agent to infer which recommender fits.

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 implied by the input categories (website, app, API, bot, MCP server, SaaS, downloadable tool), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as recommend_product or list_public_products.

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