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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context the annotations do not: results are a deliberately short, unfiltered-by-product sample rather than an exhaustive or product-matched list, which sets correct expectations about result completeness.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the capability and its filter come first, and the scope limitation follows. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 one-optional-param, read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, what it filters on, and how complete the results are. Only the explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 parameter is an enum with a description, so the schema carries the semantics. The description merely restates the four enum values (directory, newsletter, community, launch) without adding selection guidance for which type to pick. 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns a short sample of places to launch or get early users') and states the filtering dimension. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_launch_channels, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'short sample' framing plus the note that the 'full, rule-checked list matched to a specific product is part of First Sale Scout' hints this is a lightweight preview, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus list_launch_channels or get_launch_checklist is given.

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