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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the return payload (state, queue position, launch date, listing URL) and adds a notable transparency guarantee ('toolfound never hides queue state — what this returns is exactly what everyone sees'). It doesn't cover edge cases, but for a read-only status tool this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase contributes: the first sentence lists the return elements, the second adds a behavioral philosophy. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (two optional params, no output schema), and the description fully covers the primary return values and behavior. It doesn't mention error handling, but that is a minor gap for a status lookup. The description is self-sufficient.

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 100% for both parameters, so the bar is baseline 3. The description adds the 'by submission id or product URL' alternative relationship, but this is also implied by the schema's url description ('Or the product URL you submitted.'), adding minimal new meaning.

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 opens with a specific action ('Check the status of a toolfound submission') and enumerates the exact data returned (state, queue position, launch date, listing URL). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like toolfound_check_verification and toolfound_get_launch_calendar.

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 a clear use case: checking launch status by submission id or product URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous and aligns with the tool's title.

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