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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is 'evidence-bounded' and returns a 'canonical web tool URL', which is useful extra context, but it says nothing about how the recommendation is bounded or what the payload contains.

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 filler, decision options and inputs front-loaded before the return-value note. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described in detail, but with five undocumented required enum inputs and no explanation of how the inputs drive the three-way decision, the definition is too thin for an agent to call it confidently.

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% across five required enum parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It references 'change' and 'evidence' obliquely but never explains the enum values (small/major/direction, strong/release/none) or the roles of audienceChanged, listingCurrent, and measurementReady.

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 states a specific verb (choose) and a three-way resource outcome (relaunch / regular update / more preparation), which is plainly distinct from the action-oriented sibling toolfound_relaunch. It does not explicitly name or route against the close siblings toolfound_launch_readiness or toolfound_launch_review, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the trigger condition — the decision is driven by 'the size of the change and launch evidence you provide' — but never states when to call this versus running a launch readiness review or invoking the relaunch tool itself. Usage is inferable from the sibling list rather than spelled out.

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