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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are returned newest first, the default scope is only the current user's launches, and the returned fields include status, files, and dates. Pagination beyond the limit parameter is not explained.

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 two sentences largely restate each other – 'newest first' appears in both, and 'Every launch made with Apogee' is repeated as 'The user's launches'. The information is front-loaded, but a single sentence could have carried the same content without the duplication.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, filterable dimensions, and the shape of returned entries (status, files, dates), which is enough to call it correctly. Gaps are minor: no pagination behavior and no explanation of how this differs from single-launch status tools.

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 only 33% – only 'limit' (Default 25) is documented in the schema, and 'ad_account_id' is undocumented there. The description partially compensates by explaining that results can be narrowed to one ad account and by naming the status states, but it does not clarify that status acts as a filter, nor what the status values mean operationally.

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 the resource clearly (launch records created via app, AI assistants, and API) and states the ordering (newest first) and the scope (the user's own launch history). An agent can tell this is a history-listing tool, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like launch_status or import_status, so the boundary is left implicit.

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 phrase 'the app's History' implies the browsing context and 'optionally of one ad account' signals that an ad-account filter is available, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus launch_status (single launch) or import_status, and no statement of prerequisites or when not to call it.

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