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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the content source (viberaven.dev) with sources attached, and the crucial clarification that the items are manual checks the user performs, with the local `npx ... check` step being advice rather than a gate.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the invocation condition and each sentence carrying distinct information (when to use, what is returned, what the tool does not do). There is mild redundancy between the stack list in prose and the enum, but no filler.

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 single-enum read-only lookup tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing material is missing: the trigger, the output content, the non-execution boundary, and the optional local step are all addressed.

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% and the single `stack` parameter is a fully enumerated field whose values are documented in the schema itself. The description restates the two stacks in prose but adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource (returns a manual pre-launch checklist) and scopes it precisely to two named stacks ('Lovable + Supabase' and 'Next.js + Supabase on Vercel'). It also draws a sharp negative boundary ('this tool does not run any of them'), so an agent cannot confuse it with an execution tool or with the sibling search_guides/explain_finding tools.

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 opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants a manual pre-launch checklist for...'), which is clear context for invocation. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the tight stack scoping effectively excludes off-target requests.

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