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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that metrics are 'REALES' (real) and that totals are included, which gives some insight into data accuracy and output content. Yet it lacks any disclosure about read-only behavior, response structure, error conditions, or operational caveats, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise at two sentences, with the key data content front-loaded in the first sentence. The use of ALL CAPS for 'MÉTRICAS REALES' is somewhat emphatic but not wasteful. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's 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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but misses important context: it does not explain the structure of stages or metrics, nor clarify how this tool compares to list_launches. The parameter is undocumented, and the return format is vaguely described, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 input schema has a single launch_id parameter with no description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, nor does it explain its format, constraints, or how it relates to the returned data. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 returns a launch with its stages and real metrics (sent, opens, clicks) plus a total. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve', the noun phrase is informative and distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as list_launches by focusing on per-stage metrics.

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 final sentence 'Es la forma de saber cómo va un lanzamiento' provides a clear use case for monitoring launch progress. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like list_launches or get_campaign_stats, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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