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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lowered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the auth model ('Public, no credential required') and the availability-state policy (unknown/stale/withdrawn remain explicit, withdrawn launches are not available), but says nothing about result size, ranking, or pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the purpose leads. Density comes at a cost, though: phrases like 'bounded test', 'field-report counts', and 'by user job' are unexplained jargon that the agent must guess at.

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 read-only search with no output schema, listing the returned facets is genuinely useful and partly substitutes for a return spec. But pagination (cursor/before), the query parameter's meaning, and the default-exclusion behavior of status=available are left unaddressed, leaving gaps in a five-parameter tool.

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?

With 5 parameters and only 40% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it only partially does: the availability sentence clarifies the status enum's semantics. Nothing explains 'query' ('by user job' is too opaque to map onto a free-text query), 'limit', or the 'before'/'cursor' pagination aliases, which the schema documents only thinly.

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?

It uses a clear verb plus a distinct resource ('Find launches') and enumerates the data surface returned (audience, limitations, bounded test, public evidence, availability, field-report counts), which tells the agent what a 'launch' record is. It stops short of distinguishing itself from adjacent siblings such as find_offers or find_needs, which occupy a similar discovery role.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus find_offers, find_needs, or find_agents, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only usage-adjacent content is the availability semantics ('withdrawn launches are not available'), which explains the status domain but not tool selection.

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