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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the auth prerequisite (launch_id and token from launchpad.start) and the shape of what comes back. It stops short of saying that progress is persisted against the plan, how statuses transition, or what happens on token expiry or an unknown step id.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its return value, with the prerequisite placed last where it reads as a checklist item. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return payload in prose, which is a real contribution. But for a stateful 5-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no output contract, it omits status semantics, persistence behavior and failure modes, leaving a knowledgeable agent still guessing at the edges.

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 only 40%, so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. It names launch_id and token (both already obvious from the required array) but says nothing about the status enum (started/done/stuck/skipped/waiting_owner), when to omit step, or the coupling of reason to status stuck — all of which live only in the schema or nowhere at all.

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 ('report progress') plus resource ('a Launchpad plan'), and it goes further by naming the outputs: next step, on-track check, workaround when stuck. It also ties itself to the launchpad_start sibling by stating where launch_id and token come from, which implies the start-then-report sequence, though it never explicitly contrasts the two tools.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: report a status, retrieve the next step, and get a workaround 'if you are stuck.' There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do instead when a plan is finished or how this relates to calling launchpad_start again. An agent can infer the flow but must do the work itself.

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