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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes pulling engagement metrics, recommending next steps, and returning per-account analytics and a structured brief. While it does not explicitly state whether data is mutated, the read-only nature is strongly implied by the language used.

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 compact but information-dense, using a clear trigger–action–output structure. It is slightly long but every clause adds value, and the colon-delimited list of outputs improves readability.

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?

The description covers the trigger condition, input scope, process, and output components, including the recommendation brief. Given the absence of an output schema, this is fairly complete. It could be more explicit about error conditions or required prior state, but the key prerequisite (≥24h after publish) is clearly stated.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema, and the tool description adds the origin of runId (from launch_product) and the meaning of outputMode. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description provides marginal added value beyond the schema, but it is consistent and adequate.

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's function: pulls post-launch engagement metrics for posts in a launch run and generates a recommendation brief. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its alias and specific trigger condition, making it uniquely identifiable as the post-launch review tool.

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?

An explicit 'USE WHEN' clause defines the exact conditions (≥24h after publish, user asks about launch performance) and provides example queries. This gives clear, unambiguous guidance on when to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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