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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's marginal job is to add behavior. It does add one genuinely useful fact: every pick carries a human-written verdict, including negative ones for sites not worth paying for. Beyond that it largely enumerates fields (DR, link type, price) that an output schema already exposes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the value proposition and closing with the routing advice; every clause earns its place. The field enumeration in the middle is the only mildly redundant part.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter recommendation tool with a full schema and an output schema, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing: what it returns, how it is ordered, and where to go next are all stated.

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 enum values are documented inline, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds the ordering/grouping behavior ('launch day first, evergreen after') but nothing about how free_only or product_type change the result set. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: curated 'launch directories for a product type', plus the organizing principle (grouped by when to submit). It explicitly separates itself from find_launch_directories, so an agent can pick between the two without reading either schema.

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?

'Start here; use find_launch_directories to go wider across all 1,667 sites' gives both the default choice and the named alternative with the condition that selects it. No when-to-use inference is required.

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