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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the call hits the chain every time (no caching), and it enumerates the terminal and intermediate states (awaiting_approval/awaiting_signature, submitted, confirmed, failed, expired). Coverage of return content is also useful given there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loads the read-only read framing, then the state list and return fields in dense, information-bearing sentences. Slightly long for one sentence, but every clause (states, returns, re-poll guidance) carries weight.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it lists statuses, the mint, transaction signature, links, and post-confirmation artifacts. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 100% and the pattern/format for launchId are already in the schema. The description only adds that the id originates from launch_token, which is a marginal clarification rather than new syntax or semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading where a launch created by launch_token currently stands. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like launch_token (creation) and start_launch without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context – 'It checks the chain on every call, so call it again to follow progress after the user signs' – which tells the agent to poll rather than cache the result. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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