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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context: the default window, the one-year cap, the source-attribution taxonomy, and the important edge case that undated products are 'counted, not listed'. Return format or pagination behavior is not addressed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the resource and ordering lead, followed by return shape, then filtering and the counting caveat. The nested parenthetical enumerations make it run-on, but every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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 carries the return-shape burden, describing the date/window forms, the source labels, and report counts. Together with the default-window and cap behavior, an agent has enough to invoke it; only relative-to-sibling guidance is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema (including defaults and the 366-day cap). The description largely restates this and enumerates category values already implied by the schema examples, adding only the 'narrow' semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource ('Products not yet on sale, in date order') and enumerates the returned fields (release date, announcement event, window, source attribution, report count). It implicitly separates itself from sibling get_release_history by scoping to future-facing products, but it never names an alternative, so the differentiation is by contrast rather than explicit routing.

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 useful defaulting context ('Defaults to the next 120 days') and notes that category and company 'narrow it', implying filter usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_release_history, get_product_news, or get_detailed_facts, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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