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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results span both live and past launches, and listing text is untrusted maker-authored content that should be quoted rather than followed — a real security note an agent would otherwise miss. It does not cover pagination or default limit behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and scoped by search axes, followed by the injection warning where it will be read before results are handled. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the limit/pagination parameter, which is undocumented in both schema and description for a tool whose result volume an agent needs to reason about.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does map three of four parameters to semantics (text→query, category→category, built-with tool→built_with), but says nothing about the limit parameter, its default of 20, or its maximum of 50.

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 (search) and a specific resource (Launchdog's live and past launches) plus the three supported search axes. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_launch (single fetch) and list_winners (curated listing).

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 implies the retrieval context — finding launches by text, category, or built-with tool — but never says when to prefer this over list_launch_weeks, list_winners, or get_launch, nor that all filters are optional. Usage is inferable from the phrasing rather than stated.

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