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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds a real operational fact beyond them: the call requires the launches:write scope, which an agent must have provisioned before invoking. The apparent tension between a read-only tool and a write scope is worth noting but describes API permissions rather than mutating behavior, so it is not an annotation contradiction.

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 compact fragments cover the return contents, the sequencing constraint, and the auth scope with no filler. The parenthetical 'with spots left per week' is dense but carries genuine information about scarcity signaling; the telegraphic style is slightly terse but never ambiguous.

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?

The tool is a one-parameter read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, so little prose is required. The description supplies the prerequisite scope and the follow-up tool, leaving only edge cases (ineligible listing, empty result) unstated — a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% and the single productId parameter is documented as 'The listing's id.' The description only implies through 'open to a listing' that the id refers to a listing rather than a product, adding essentially nothing the schema does not already say. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (launch weeks available to a listing) and enumerates the two options returned, Free and Premium. It is clearly distinguishable from data-mutating siblings like choose_launch, though it never states the verb 'retrieves' explicitly and relies on the tool name to carry that.

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?

'Use before choose_launch' gives an explicit ordering constraint that routes the agent to this tool ahead of the sibling that commits a week. It does not say what to do if no options are returned or when the tool should be skipped (e.g., already-launched listings), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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