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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: results are limited to 'approved' launches only, keyword scope is product name and tagline, and the return payload is compact (votes, ship week, awards, canonical URL).

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 short sentences, each earning its place: filters, keyword scope, and return shape. Information is front-loaded with the operation and scope before the payload detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and the 'approved' constraint plus filter facets are enough to call the tool correctly. The only shortfall is the absence of any guidance on sorting, pagination, or result volume for a 6-parameter search tool.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the keyword scope already documented on 'query' and names category/tag usage, but says nothing about sort, limit, or offset, which is where the schema is thinnest (limit and offset carry no prose description). It adds marginal value rather than compensating for the gap.

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+resource+scope ('Search approved Shipstry launches by keyword, category, or tag'), which cleanly separates it from siblings such as get_launch (single item), list_ship_week, and get_winners. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 is implied by the faceting description (keyword/category/tag), so an agent can infer when the tool applies. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no pointer to alternatives like get_launch for fetching a known launch or get_category_landscape for discovering tags.

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