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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that this anonymous transport does not perform the write, only returns an eligibility result, and that authorization happens elsewhere. It doesn't describe failure modes or the response shape, keeping it from a 5.

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, zero waste, front-loading the operation and its identity before the transport limitation. Every clause 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 mutation-intent tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece: that this transport only reports eligibility rather than writing. Return-value detail is absent, but the critical caveat an agent needs is present.

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%, so all four parameters (including the note and date fallback semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Relaunch an already-launched Toolfound listing') and clarifies it's the same listing/URL with a new launch date, which scopes it apart from submit_product and verify_submission. It does not name a sibling directly, but the 'already-launched' qualifier does the differentiation work.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('already-launched' listing, 'fresh verified-owner session') and tells the agent what to do instead if the session isn't available (direct owners to the dashboard). No explicit when-not against toolfound_relaunch_decision, but context is adequate.

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