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

Annotations already cover safety as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds useful behavior: no account is required for the catalog, agents never see setups while person calls include saved setups/revisions/limits, and credit commitments differ from actual usage. These are meaningful disclosures beyond the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded and most sentences earn their place, especially the launch pointer and access distinction. The phrasing around 'setups adds...' and the final credit-commitment sentence is somewhat dense and less immediately clear, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Given zero parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the definition is largely complete: it explains the catalog, access model, launching path, person-vs-agent visibility, and credit distinction. The only residual gap is the slightly opaque wording around setups and credit commitments.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter details.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: it lists specific agent kinds (Curator, Support, Research, Orchestrator), what each is for, and their typical Credit use. It also distinguishes this catalog read from launching an agent by pointing to space_launch_agent.

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?

It gives clear context for reading the catalog without an account and explicitly names space_launch_agent as the tool to start an agent. It does not cover exclusions or contrast with agent_configure/agent_delete, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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