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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior by specifying that it matches name, tagline, and description and sorts by upvotes, but it omits pagination or result-format details. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and scope; the second adds matched fields and ordering. Every part 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?

For a simple keyword search tool with two parameters and annotations covering read-only/idiompotent behavior, the description covers scope, matched fields, and sort order. It omits details about the return shape, but since there is no output schema and complexity is low, this is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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?

The schema already describes query with examples, and the description adds that the query matches name/tagline/description, clarifying search semantics. The limit parameter lacks a schema description and is not mentioned in the description, though its constraints (default 10, max 25) are present in the schema. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 opens with 'Keyword search across every product that has launched on LaunchOnIt', naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_product (single-product retrieval) and get_weekly_leaderboard by focusing on keyword search, and further details matched fields and ordering.

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 conveys that this tool is for keyword search, so usage context is implied. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer that get_product might be better for known IDs or that leaderboard tools serve different needs.

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