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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only)Skip; the description adds meaningful behavior: it never charges, requires an API key, and returns price, delivery promise, and a payment link. This goes beyond the structured hints and clarifies side effects and prerequisites.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then quickly covers costs, API key requirement, and return values. Minor redundancy exists between 'Asks... the team' and 'Tells the team,' but each sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description still covers return values, pricing behavior, authentication requirements, and available options. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation, though it doesn't discuss error cases or asynchronous behavior.

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 description explains the required 'offer' parameter's enum values with concrete scenarios, which is the most important parameter. 'note' and 'repo' are already described in the schema, so the description adds value where the schema is weakest.

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 names specific actions: launch, launch_secure, and move, and explains each parenthetically. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling self-service tools and states both the verb and the resource.

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 description gives clear context: use this tool when the user wants The Deployer's team to perform a launch, secured launch, or migration. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough among the sibling tools.

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