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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: results are human-curated, include verdicts even for not-worth-paying options, and contain metrics like Ahrefs DR, link type, and price. This tells the agent the nature and limitations of the recommendations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core value, the second explains what each pick includes, and the third gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given that all parameters are optional, the output schema exists, and annotations already cover safety/idempotency, the description provides enough context for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool. It covers scope, curation, output characteristics, and the relationship to a sibling tool.

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 both parameters are already documented with defaults and enum meanings. The description doesn't add parameter-level details, but it reinforces the product-type context and implies the inclusion of pricing information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies a specific action: recommending hand-picked launch directories for a product type, with the output grouped by submission timing. It also distinguishes itself from find_launch_directories by calling itself the curated starting point and the sibling the broader option.

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 explicitly says 'Start here' and directs users to find_launch_directories when they want to go wider across all 1,666 sites. This provides a clear decision rule for when to use this tool versus the main alternative.

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