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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description needs to clarify the side effects of the write path. Instead it says 'Create or read', which blurs whether the call mutates state, and 'cached' sits awkwardly with an explicitly non-idempotent tool by implying repeat calls return the same plan. 'Free' is a useful cost disclosure, but the agent still cannot tell what gets created, what happens on repeat invocation, or whether the result can go stale.

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 with the core scope front-loaded and no filler or hedging. The documentation URL takes space without adding actionable guidance, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations covering parameters, the description should say what the returned plan looks like and how projectId is sourced. It supplies neither, so an agent has to guess at both the input's origin and the output's shape before calling.

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 one required parameter, projectId, with 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning and does not mention it at all. It never says whether projectId is a LaunchBuddy project id versus some other identifier, nor how to obtain one (list_projects is a sibling but is not referenced). With coverage this low, the parameter definition is effectively undocumented.

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 names a resource ('ranked launch work' plan) and a scope ('connected project'), which is more than a restatement of the name. But it conflates two distinct operations in 'Create or read', so an agent cannot tell whether invoking it produces a new plan or returns an existing one. It also does nothing to separate itself from siblings like get_launch_todos, get_launch_resource, or assess_launch, which sound like they surface similar planning output.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no trigger conditions, no prerequisites, no named alternatives. The only routing aid is an external documentation URL, which pushes the decision onto an out-of-band resource rather than telling the agent here whether to call this instead of assess_launch or get_launch_todos.

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