Pre-launch security checklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that the output is a curated checklist with builder-tailored notes rather than live scan results, but says nothing about sizing, ordering, or how the builder value changes coverage.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the category list and the builder qualifier packed in without filler. The parenthetical list is dense but each item carries 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize the return value, and it does: a checklist spanning five security domains plus builder-specific notes. Only the exact shape/format of the checklist is left unspecified.

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 enum values are self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. 'With notes for the builder used' hints that the parameter changes the returned notes, which is mild added meaning beyond 'Which tool built the app.'

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?

Specific verb ('Return') plus concrete resource ('pre-launch security checklist') and an enumerated scope (secrets, RLS, Firebase rules, auth, payments). An agent can tell it apart from the sibling audit/scan tools, which actually inspect code, though the description never explicitly says it is guidance-only rather than an audit.

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?

'Pre-launch' implies the timing context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus the siblings (supabase_rls_audit_sql, check_key_exposure, scan_my_app_instructions). The agent must infer that this is the planning/guidance step rather than the auditing step.

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