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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by listing the exact data returned: quote components, preview status, wallet balance, required amount, and shortfall. This gives the agent a clear behavioral expectation 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 description is a single, tightly-packed sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Pre-launch check') and then enumerates the returned fields in a compact list. Every word contributes information; there is no repetition of the tool name or any filler.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what data the summary contains, where the survey_id comes from (via the schema), and the pre-launch context in which it applies. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

The schema covers the only parameter (survey_id) fully with a description and minimum constraint, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but that is acceptable because the schema already carries the burden.

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 names a specific resource ('launch summary') and details exactly what it contains: final quote, preview status, wallet balance, required amount, and shortfall. This is distinguishable from similar siblings like get_price_quote and get_wallet because it combines those pieces into a single pre-launch check. The verb is implied by 'get' in the title and the noun-phrase description is sufficient.

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?

The phrase 'Pre-launch check' clearly communicates when the tool is relevant: before launching a survey. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is concrete enough for an agent to select it appropriately. Some extra guidance about choosing this over get_price_quote/get_wallet would push it to a 5.

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