Search launches

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the ranking bias — featured/paid matches rank first and are flagged — which the agent needs in order to weigh results. It also explains the two result URL fields and instructs the agent to cite pageUrl as the source, plus the get_product escalation path.

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 purpose, then usage trigger, then filters, then result fields — a sensible order with no filler. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence carries information the agent can act on.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing the shape of results (pageUrl, website, featured marking) and the ranking order. Combined with annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this and interpret the response.

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%, so query, limit, pricing, and category are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates that category and pricing are optional narrowing filters and does not add syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Find software launched on CodeDebut by keyword' — and enumerates the matched fields (name, tagline, description, tags, maker). This clearly separates it from sibling lookups like get_product (slug-based detail) and browse_category (taxonomy traversal).

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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition ('when a user asks for a tool that does X') with two worked example queries, and routes to get_product for full detail. It stops short of naming when to prefer browse_category, list_categories, or find_alternatives, so sibling disambiguation is only partially covered.

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