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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the vote-counting reset behavior, preservation of the original launch as history, the public note requirement, the 30-day rate limit, and the ownership/email check. This gives an agent a complete picture of side effects and constraints.

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 but every sentence adds essential information: core behavior, vote handling, public note, eligibility, rate limit, and authorization. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then expands into constraints without any filler or repetition.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It explains what happens on success, what changes are recorded, what the agent must supply, how scheduling works, and what restrictions apply. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and understand its consequences.

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 the schema already fully documents slug, email, note, and requested_launch_date. The main description restates the note requirement and ownership check but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Relaunch an already-launched toolfound listing.' It clearly distinguishes this from new submissions by emphasizing 'already-launched,' 'same listing, same URL,' and how the relaunch appears alongside the original launch. This leaves no ambiguity about what operation the tool performs.

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 clearly states when the tool can be used: only after the listing has been live at least 30 days since its last launch or relaunch, and at most once every 30 days. It also specifies who is allowed to call it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives such as submit_product for brand-new listings, but 'already-launched' and the eligibility conditions make the intended context clear.

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