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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive annotations, the description discloses behavior that annotations cannot: nothing is created or spent, paid inference is consumed only when a credit exists, plan/audience are omitted without credit, and readiness checks are always returned. This is exactly the kind of cost and side-effect disclosure that matters for a preview tool.

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 bolded no-create/no-spend statement is front-loaded where it matters most, followed by the gate/credit behavior and a compact returns listing. It is slightly long for two parameters, but every section carries information.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (ideaId, readiness entries with key/label/ready/fix, readyToLaunch, credits, canStartAdRun, plan, launchUrl, note) and the conditional logic governing plan availability. An agent has everything needed to interpret the result without guessing.

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 0% for two parameters. The description never explains ideaId or the markdown/json response_format enum; the 'Returns:' block describes output shape, not parameter meaning. Not enough to compensate for a fully undocumented 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 states a specific dual verb+resource: check readiness for an idea and preview what would run. It clearly separates this from siblings like idealaunch_get_ad_run (started runs) and idealaunch_get_idea (raw idea data), and the title reinforces the dry-run nature.

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?

It establishes the pre-launch context ('ready to test', 'preview what would run') and explicitly routes the actual start action elsewhere ('Starting the run is confirmed in the Idea Launch app'). It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over idealaunch_get_idea or idealaunch_get_capabilities, so an agent must infer the ordering.

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