launches

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 describes the return data (name, net time, etc.), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation, leaving gaps in behavioral context for the agent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise list of returned data. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what data it returns, but without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format or error cases. The lack of annotations means the description should cover more behavioral aspects, which it partially does but not fully.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid IDs or usage notes, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 specific action ('Get full details') and resource ('a specific launch by its Launch Library 2 ID'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on individual launch details rather than lists or searches. It explicitly mentions the data returned, which helps differentiate its purpose from the sibling tools that handle multiple launches.

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 usage context by specifying 'by its Launch Library 2 ID', suggesting this tool is for retrieving details when you have a specific launch ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_past_launches or search_launches, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned (name, net launch time, etc.) but lacks behavioral context like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).

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 concise sentences: one stating the action and source, another listing returned fields. Efficiently front-loaded with core purpose. Could be slightly improved by integrating return details more smoothly.

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 operation with 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It specifies the data source and return fields, but lacks context on limitations, errors, or sibling tool differentiation. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral transparency would be beneficial.

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 the schema already documents the 'limit' parameter with its default. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get past rocket launches from Launch Library 2' with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from 'get_upcoming_launches' by specifying 'past' launches, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_launch' (singular) or 'search_launches'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_launch' (singular), 'get_upcoming_launches', or 'search_launches'. Only implicit context from 'past' in the name.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return fields (name, net launch time, etc.) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a read operation with external data, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key return data. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from output details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return fields but misses behavioral aspects like data freshness, source reliability, or error cases. It's adequate for a simple read tool but lacks depth for robust agent use.

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%, with the single parameter 'limit' documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a default behavior for upcoming launches, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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 action ('Get upcoming rocket launches') and the data source ('from Launch Library 2'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_past_launches. It specifies the verb (get) and resource (upcoming rocket launches), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_launches in scope or method.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_past_launches or search_launches. The description implies it's for upcoming launches but doesn't specify contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (matching launches with specific fields) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether results are sorted. For a search tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and search scope, the second specifies the return format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return fields but omits behavioral aspects like result limits, sorting, or error cases. It's adequate for minimal use but lacks depth for robust agent operation.

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 the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions searchable fields (rocket name, mission name, agency) which helps interpret 'query', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Search launches by keyword' with specific searchable fields (rocket name, mission name, agency, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on keyword search rather than retrieving specific launches (get_launch) or time-based lists (get_past_launches, get_upcoming_launches). However, it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives for full differentiation.

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 usage context through 'Search launches by keyword' and the examples, suggesting it's for finding launches matching search terms rather than retrieving by ID or time. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like get_past_launches for chronological listings or get_launch for specific IDs, leaving some ambiguity.

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