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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's only additional claim, "with pagination", merely restates the page/page_size parameters already in the schema, adding no behavioral context such as ordering, default sort, or what a launch record 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?

A single short phrase with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. It still omits anything about result ordering, total counts for pagination, or how launches relate to the create_launch/delete_launch pair, which would help an agent plan paging loops.

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%, with defaults and min/max documented for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of pagination duplicates the schema rather than adding meaning beyond it.

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 and resource ("list your launches"), so an agent immediately knows this is a read/listing operation. It does not differentiate from siblings such as get_launch or list_autopilot_runs, so it falls 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than get_launch, get_launch_status, or list_autopilot_runs. The phrase "your launches" hints at ownership scoping but never states a condition for selection or exclusions.

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