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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely non-annotated context – that listing text is untrusted content – but says nothing about what happens when neither identifier is supplied or how live vs past launches differ.

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?

A single compact fragment with the lookup keys front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably over-compressed into a noun phrase rather than a complete statement of action.

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 enumerating return fields is optional extra credit rather than a gap. The real missing piece is the invocation rule for two all-optional parameters, which an agent needs before calling.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it does add the 'lch_…' prefix hint for ids and clarifies slug means product slug. However both parameters are optional and the description never says at least one is required or what precedence applies if both are passed.

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?

Identifies the resource (a live or past launch) and the two lookup keys, and the returned fields, which clearly separates it from the listing/oriented siblings. The verb is only implied by the name rather than stated, keeping it 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to siblings (search_board would be the alternative when you don't have an id or slug). It also gives no guidance on choosing between slug and launch_id.

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