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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it publishes the listing only if the badge is installed, and only for free launches after deployment, though it does not describe failure or return behavior.

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 short and front-loaded: the main action comes first, followed by the critical eligibility conditions and the alternative tool for paid listings. Every sentence carries operational value.

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, conditional mutation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly. It is slightly incomplete because it does not state what is returned or what happens when the badge is not found.

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 single submission_token parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it comes from submit_product. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: check the Noonlaunch badge on the product site and publish the listing if present. It also distinguishes the free-launch path from the paid path and names check_status as the paid alternative.

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 conditions are explicit: only for free launches, only after the person has deployed the change, and paid listings should use check_status instead. This leaves little ambiguity about when to invoke or avoid the tool.

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