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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent; the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the full state set, UNKNOWN as retry-worthy, CABINET semantics, and traffic referral/share rules. It also clarifies that a completed traffic campaign closes the step permanently, which is non-obvious.

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?

All sentences contain useful information, but the description is a single dense paragraph that would benefit from bullets or sections for the state enum and traffic rules. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but readability suffers.

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 the return fields, state semantics, retry behavior, and special cases (traffic, bonus). It provides enough context for an agent to interpret and act on the launch path without seeing sample output.

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 only parameter, applicationId, is already fully described in the schema ('as returned by list_applications'), and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. With 100% schema coverage, no additional compensation is needed.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'the developer's path for the game' and enumerates the ordered steps (archive through traffic), so an agent can tell it returns the full launch path. It is distinct from single-step siblings like get_archive_status and get_sandbox_state, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 provides operational guidance for retries ('UNKNOWN is neither done nor not done: call again', 'reuse the returned bonusId when retrying'), but it does not explain when to choose this tool over sibling status tools or when not to use it. The intended use is implied by the name and purpose, not explicit.

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