DiscoverLaunches

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares a safe read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing what comes back and in what format (full detail fields as markdown), which annotations don't cover. It does not mention behavior for unknown or unlaunched slugs.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause (the field list, the markdown format) adds information. Nothing is padded or restated from the name.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and the format. The main remaining gap is error or not-found behavior for a slug that does not correspond to a launched product.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that it is a product slug from search_launches. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, so baseline 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 (get) and resource (launched product) and enumerates the payload (description, pricing, use cases, alternatives, tech stack). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_launches, which is a discovery tool, and from site_overview.

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 by 'launched product' plus the schema note that the slug comes from search_launches, which suggests the search-then-fetch workflow. But the description itself never says to use this after search_launches or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the routing from the parameter schema.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating the result limit (up to 10 matches) and the returned fields (slug, name, tagline, URL), which is helpful because no output schema exists.

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 description is two tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The core purpose is front-loaded and the return behavior follows immediately.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with readOnlyHint, the description covers the searchable dimensions and the return shape sufficiently. Minor gaps, such as ordering or empty-result behavior, are not critical for this tool's complexity.

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%, so the single query parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds some semantic context by saying queries can target name, category, or use case, but it does not add syntax or formatting details beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: search products launched on DiscoverLaunches, scoped by name, category, or use case. It is clearly a discovery/search tool and implicitly distinct from get_product, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 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: use this to find products when the user has a query rather than a specific product identifier. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this instead of get_product or site_overview, nor does it give exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return format (markdown) and the content scope of the overview, which is genuinely useful for deciding whether to call it.

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 sentence front-loaded with the tool's identity and return format. The trailing content list is slightly listy but earns its place by telling the agent what the overview contains.

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 explaining the return value, and it does so (markdown overview with listed content). For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to complete, though it does not hint at size or structure.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required, and no parameter semantics are needed.

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 resource and return format: an overview of DiscoverLaunches delivered as markdown, enumerating the content it covers (pages, launch guides, categories, SEO tools, products). It does not explicitly name the siblings get_product or search_launches, so the differentiation is implicit (overview vs. targeted lookups) rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent can infer it is an orientation/directory tool, but nothing tells it to prefer this over search_launches or get_product for specific lookups.

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