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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context by disclosing that Fog Mode hides the current week's vote counts and randomizes ordering. It stops short of describing pagination or response shape, but that is largely carried by limit/offset in the 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the core behavior (what is listed) is front-loaded ahead of the conditional Fog Mode caveat. The parenthetical week formatting is dense but 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 5-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs (week defaulting, Fog Mode vote hiding and random ordering). It could say more about the return shape or pagination expectations, but nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 60%, so the description needs to add meaning, and it does: it clarifies shipWeek is keyed to the Monday in YYYYMMDD form with a current-week default, and explains that sort's 'votes' mode is forced to random under Fog Mode. limit/offset and category receive no extra prose, but they are self-evident given ranges and the enum.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the products that launched in one ship week') and even defines the week's semantics (Monday-Sunday UTC, YYYYMMDD key). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names or contrasts itself with siblings like search_launches or get_winners, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 states the default (current ship week) and a conditional behavior under Fog Mode, which implies when the tool is useful, but it offers no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or pointer to an alternative such as search_launches for cross-week queries. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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