Microlaunch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: an unknown category does not error but returns the list of valid categories, which prevents a failed call. It does not describe result ordering details or pagination/size limits.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, usage triggers come second, and the edge-case behavior is placed last where it belongs.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, invocation triggers, example values, and the failure-mode behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% ('Category name or slug'), so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by supplying concrete example values ('AI', 'marketing', 'dev tools', 'productivity', 'SEO', 'no-code'), which tells the agent what granularity of category string is expected.

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 and resource — 'List the best-ranked products on Microlaunch in a category' — so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling top_launches, which also sounds like a ranking tool; the category scoping is the only implicit differentiator.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ('best X tools', 'what tools exist for Y') and an explicit fallback: if the category is unknown, valid categories are returned. It stops short of naming when to prefer top_launches or list_deals instead, so the routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety needs no restatement. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not cover failure behavior for a missing or invalid slug, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the slug source, then the return fields. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: where the input value comes from and what the response contains. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 100% and the single parameter already has an example, so the baseline is met. The description goes further by naming where valid slugs originate (browse_category or top_launches), which is provenance the schema does not provide.

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 and resource ('Get details for one Microlaunch product by its slug') and enumerates exactly what comes back: description, category, stage, votes, reviews count and awards. That distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling list/browse tools, which return collections rather than a single product.

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?

Explicitly ties usage to the sibling tools by saying the slug comes 'from browse_category or top_launches results', which tells the agent this is the follow-up call after a listing. It stops short of stating an exclusion or precondition (e.g., what happens with an unknown slug), so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that the returned deals do not include promo codes and that codes must be obtained on the Microlaunch site. That is a non-obvious output limitation an agent could otherwise waste a call trying to work around.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action, then adds the optional filter, then the caveat. No padding and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the resource, the filter, and the key limitation on returned data. Only the shape of the result list (fields per deal, pagination) is left unstated, which is minor here.

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% and the single category parameter is documented with examples ('ai, marketing'). The description adds only that the filter is optional and slug-shaped, which the schema already conveys with required: [] and its maxLength/description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'List active discounts and lifetime deals from indie makers on Microlaunch.' The scope (active deals only, filtered by category) makes it clearly distinct from browse_category, get_product, and top_launches, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

'Optionally by category slug' implies the filtering use case, and 'Codes are revealed on Microlaunch, not here' sets an expectation about what the agent can do with the result. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools, so usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds leaderboard ranking semantics and time-scope options, but does not describe return format, pagination, or ranking criteria. With annotations carrying the main behavioral disclosure, a 3 is appropriate.

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 and front-loaded, moving directly from the leaderboard definition to scope and category filtering, then to usage guidance. Every sentence contributes to selecting or scoping the tool.

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 leaderboard tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scopes, filtering, and usage context sufficiently. It leaves return shape implicit, but the leaderboard framing gives the agent enough to call it correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the scope options and provides additional category slug examples (ai, marketing, dev-tools, productivity, seo), but these largely extend rather than meaningfully deepen the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when schema coverage is high.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current Microlaunch leaderboard: top-ranked launches.' It also states the time scopes and optional category filter, so an agent can understand the operation without opening the schema. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as browse_category, which keeps it from 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?

The description provides a clear usage context: "Use for 'what's new/trending in indie products' questions." This helps select the tool over unrelated siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when another sibling like browse_category would be preferred.

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