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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies output fields (launch id, status, timestamps), pagination limits (default 20, max 100 per page), and ordering (most recent first). It also suggests drilling into GetLaunch, enriching the agent's understanding of expected 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Each sentence earns its place, though the mention of 'optionally' in the third sentence adds a slight wrinkle. Overall it is concise and well-structured.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to list return fields, but it still mentions them for context. It covers the main use case, pagination behavior, and a drill-down path to GetLaunch. The limit/offset required confusion is a minor completeness gap, but overall it provides sufficient context for the agent.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, and the description compensates by naming graph ID, variant name, limit, and offset, plus default/max values. However, it incorrectly states 'optionally a limit' despite the schema marking limit as required, which could mislead the agent into omitting a required parameter. This error reduces the reliability of the parameter guidance.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves recent launches for a graph variant, sorted most recent first, with a specific use case of detecting deployment instability. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like GetLaunch by describing a drill-down relationship, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use to assess deployment stability' and mentions paging via offset, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with GetLatestLaunch, which could be a similar tool for fetching just the latest launch, leaving a slight gap in alternatives guidance.

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