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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description genuinely adds the non-obvious fact that paid tiers affect scheduling only and never ranking, plus the strict upvote ordering — useful context, though it says nothing about result shape, total counts, or whether results are paginated beyond 'limit'.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then the matching and ordering rules, then the ranking caveat. No filler; each sentence contributes distinct information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotations, the description covers scope, matching fields, and ranking logic. The main omission is what a result record contains, since there is no output schema, though 'name, tagline, description' hints at the searched fields.

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 50%: 'query' is well documented in the schema with examples, while 'limit' relies on its own min/max/default constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no query syntax, no note that limit caps at 25), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (keyword search across products) plus the exact corpus scope ('every product that has launched on LaunchOnIt') and the fields matched. This clearly separates it from single-item siblings like get_product and list-style siblings like get_weekly_leaderboard.

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?

The description establishes clear context for use: discovery by keyword across the whole launched catalog. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to alternatives such as get_product when a specific product is already known, or get_winners for curated lists.

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