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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real substance: a result cap of 5, the per-match fields returned, and the empty-list behavior on no match, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the use condition, then results, then scope limits; every sentence adds a distinct constraint and none is redundant with the name or schema.

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-parameter, read-only search with an output schema present, nothing an agent needs is missing: trigger, scope boundaries, result count, per-item fields, and failure behavior are all stated.

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 coverage is 100% and the single query parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example, so the description carries no extra burden. The phrase 'by keyword' is consistent with the schema but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, matching the baseline 3.

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 gives a specific verb (searches) and resource (launch guides published on viberaven.dev), plus the precise return shape (up to 5 matches with title, URL, short answer). It also bounds scope by stating what is not searched, so an agent can distinguish this from a general web or project-introspection tool.

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 states a clear trigger condition ('when the user has a launch question about an AI-built app on Vercel + Supabase') and gives concrete example topics, plus explicit exclusions ('does not browse the web or read the user's project'). It stops short of naming the sibling tools (explain_finding, launch_checklist) to route between them.

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