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

Annotations indicate the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description goes beyond by specifying what mutations occur: stage change, update published, and waitlist notification (once). It also notes the requirement of a working product link. However, it does not mention whether the launch can be undone or if the stage change is irreversible.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and effects, then a key requirement. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists, sibling tools), the description covers the main effects and a critical requirement. It's missing the fact that the tool is likely a one-time action per startup (only notification is noted as once) and any preconditions (e.g., startup must not already be launched). Still, it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying the 'url' parameter: a working product link is required, either via the url parameter or an already saved store link. This provides context beyond the schema description, which only says 'Working product link (if not set yet)'. Other parameters are well-described in the schema.

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 purpose: announcing a startup's official launch. It lists the specific effects: stage becomes LAUNCHED, a LAUNCH update is published, and waitlist members are notified once. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'publish_update' (which just publishes an update) and 'change_startup_stage' (which changes stage without the other actions).

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 implies this tool is for official launches, not for regular updates or stage changes. It mentions that a working product link is required, which adds context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it (e.g., if only a stage change or update is needed without launching). Clear context but no exclusions mentioned.

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