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 genuinely new behavioral context by describing the shape of the result (ranked top-voted free launches, top 3 flagged as winners), which matters because there is no output schema.

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, with the resource and the result content front-loaded before the parameter clarification. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, result shape, and parameter framing. The one remaining gap is how many launches are returned per board, which an agent might want to know before calling.

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%, and the schema already states the 0/1 meaning, default 1, and max 52. The description restates the 0 and 1 semantics with a slightly clearer framing ('current, still running' vs 'last completed'), which adds marginal value but nothing beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 (the Noonlaunch launch board for a week), and adds what the payload is: top-voted free launches with the top 3 marked as winners. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the sibling names (check-product, get-plans, submit-product) occupy different domains, so misselection risk is low.

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 weeks_ago 0 vs 1 explanation implies when each value is appropriate (current running week vs last completed week), which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative tool for other kinds of launch lookups.

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