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

Annotations provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds important operational context beyond those: no auth required, a shared rate limit of 15 requests/hour across all APIbase agents, and results cached for 1 hour. This helps agents understand throttling and caching behavior, which is valuable and not disclosed by annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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, dense but structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose, lists returning fields, and then provides operational details. There is no redundancy or filler. It is longer than strictly necessary, but every clause adds value (purpose, content, source, auth, throttling, caching). Efficiency is high.

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?

With a single well-documented parameter and an output schema present (covering return format), the description completes the picture. It explains how to obtain the ID, what data will be returned, and the operational constraints (rate limit, caching). Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the 'id' parameter with a pattern and concrete example from upcoming_launches results. The description repeats this source and adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get full detail for a single launch') and identifies the resource (a launch by UUID). It enumerates the content returned (mission description, orbit, rocket, pad, provider, imagery, notes), which distinguishes it from the sibling list tool (launch-library-2.launches.upcoming). The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicitly tells agents to obtain the UUID from launch-library-2.upcoming_launches results, establishing the proper workflow. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool, but the sibling name is obvious and the usage context is clear. It also provides operational guidance on rate limits and caching, which helps agents decide when to call it. While not as explicit as 'use this instead of X when...', it is sufficient.

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