- Features - what the tool does;

- Advantages - how are the features better than the competitors';

- Benefits - why are the advantages useful to my business.

Users (devs) are typically interested in features but the people who make usage/purchasing decisions (often non-devs) are more interested in benefits.

Here's the description for, to take an example, Rust:

> Rust is a systems programming language that runs blazingly fast, prevents segfaults, and guarantees thread safety.

Succinct and understandable, and exactly what a developer chancing upon the project wants to see.

Were this to be made accessible to non-developers it would need to read something like this:

> Rust is a programming language for developing computer systems and applications that runs blazingly fast and prevents errors when programs try to access the wrong memory, or attempt to work with that memory in two different places at once.

It would be less readable and less appropriate for the primary audience of the product.

No, it could read:

"Rust is a systems programming language that runs blazingly fast and is more reliable and secure."

To a non-technical user, they basically mean "good", which is all the non-technical user really cares about. To a non-technical user, "prevents errors when programs try to access the wrong memory, or attempt to work with that memory in two different places at once" is just as much word salad as " prevents segfaults, and guarantees thread safety". They don't know what either one means or why it's a good thing.

And the first question the technical user is going to ask is "what makes it reliable and secure?"--which is what the technical description is for.

> prevents errors when programs try to access the wrong memory

Reads as "Prevents errors when <wizardry>"

In the absence of sufficient trust, a definitive explanation is always required for a party to be at ease.