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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the exact record shape, the existence of a per-launch page, and the ranking rule ('ranked by verified revenue added, never by votes'), which is non-obvious and affects interpretation of the results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then enumerates return fields, then qualifies the ranking. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the parenthetical is the only clause that carries non-obvious information.

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 burden of describing return content and does so field by field, including the ranking basis. Minor gaps remain: board size/pagination behavior, sort direction, and whether 'its page' is a URL or a path are unstated, but an agent can call it correctly without them.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free and fully scoped to the current launch period, leaving nothing for the schema to explain beyond an empty object.

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?

Concrete verb+resource+scope: it names the board ('the current launch period's board on Apptiller Launches') and enumerates the fields returned. An agent can tell it apart from submit_launch or about_apptiller by the fact that it reads the board, though siblings are not named explicitly.

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 – 'current launch period' signals this is the live-read tool, and the ranking note hints at a browsing/inspection purpose. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or caveats about what 'current' means.

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