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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it returns the next 12 Mondays, remaining free-slot counts, and full/not-full status. It explains exactly what kind of data the caller will receive, even though the output schema is available.

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?

Two short, information-dense sentences. The first states the core output, and the second states the practical use case. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns)Skip and why an agent would call it, leaving no missing behavior that the agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema already fully covers the calling contract. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4; the description adds no unnecessary parameter commentary, which 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 identifies the resource: SaaSCity's launch-week queue over the next 12 Mondays, and specifies what the tool reports (free slots left and full weeks). This is a direct, unambiguous statement of the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like get_launch_directory.

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 gives an explicit use case: telling a founder when a free listing would go live. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but for a zero-parameter read-only queue listing, the intended context is clear.

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