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

Beyond the annotations (which only flag non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description discloses the auth requirement (launches:write) and the key downstream behavior: MakerRadar reviews every listing before it goes live, so submission is gated rather than immediately live. It does not explain what happens on a repeat call, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the consequence, then the permission requirement. Nothing is repeated and no sentence could be dropped without losing 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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers prerequisites, the review gate, and the parameter dependency. The only gap is the effect of calling it again on an already-chosen launch, which is relevant because the tool is flagged non-idempotent.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the Premium-needs-week rule. The description's only addition is restating that the week value comes from get_launch_options, which the schema also implies. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: pick Free or Premium (with an optional week) and submit the listing for review. It explicitly names the sibling get_launch_options as the source of the week value. It doesn't distinguish itself from submit_listing, which is the nearest potentially overlapping sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives conditional guidance on the optional parameter ('Premium needs one; Free may omit it') and points to get_launch_options as the place to obtain a valid week. It also states the required scope, launches:write, which tells the agent what must be in place beforehand. It does not say when to prefer this over draft_listing or submit_listing.

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