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

Annotations already fully declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world). The description's only added statement is about return shape ('evidence-bounded result and canonical web tool URL'), which is redundant given the output schema. No extra behavioral context such as filtering semantics or completeness guarantees is provided.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the core filtering action is front-loaded ahead of the return note. It is tight, though 'dated' and 'evidence-bounded' are slightly jargon-y for the space they consume.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the four enum parameters are at least enumerated in the schema. But with 0% parameter descriptions, no usage guidance, and many adjacent siblings, the definition leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to fill.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it partially does by mapping its four named dimensions (product fit, cost, format, link policy) onto the four required params. It does not, however, explain the enum values themselves (e.g., 'conditional' dofollow or the launchModel variants), which remain opaque without schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb (filter) and resource (dated launch-directory evidence) and lists the four filtering dimensions, so an agent understands the tool matches directories against criteria. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like toolfound_distribution_plan, toolfound_get_launch_calendar, or toolfound_search_tools, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites, even though several siblings serve adjacent launch-planning purposes. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the entity being filtered.

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