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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that this is an aggregate entry-point read that surfaces plans, categories and launch weeks. It does not describe response shape, caching, or what an ineligible product returns, which keeps 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the purpose plus the 'call this first' directive are front-loaded before the sourcing caveat. Every clause carries operational 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to call it, how to obtain the input, and what categories of data come back. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the definition; the description adds real guidance by specifying the URL must come from the person rather than being guessed from their code. It stops short of adding format details beyond the schema's 'never a localhost or development address' note.

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 ('Check whether a product can be submitted to Noonlaunch') and enumerates what the call returns (plans, categories, launch weeks). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get-plans or submit-product, which cover only part of that scope.

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?

'Always call this first' gives an explicit ordering constraint relative to the sibling tools, and the second clause tells the agent how to source the input (ask the person for the live URL, don't infer it from code). That is both a when-to-use rule and a when-not behavior.

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