LaunchOnIt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful context about the data returned—free slots, plans, and prices—but does not disclose details like ordering, availability semantics, or response shape.

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 tight sentences front-load the core data content and end with a clear usage directive. There is no filler, repetition of the title, or extraneous detail.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the output contents and the intended use. However, the complete absence of parameter documentation—especially with no output schema—leaves a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to set 'weeks'.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its only parameter, 'weeks', and the description never mentions how this parameter controls the returned calendar. The phrase 'the live week and the weeks after it' hints at the domain but does not explain the parameter's effect, default, or range.

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 a specific resource—free launch slots, launch plans, and prices—and states a concrete use: tell a maker when they would launch. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_weekly_leaderboard or submit_product without needing their schemas.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: to tell a maker when they would launch. It gives clear context but does not list exclusions or compare against competing sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'public' context and enumerates the listing fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. It neither contradicts the annotations nor adds substantial behavioral depth beyond them.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the core purpose and then lists the content included. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context by enumerating the returned listing fields. An agent can understand what it will receive and how to invoke the tool correctly without missing critical information.

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% and the sole parameter 'slug' is already documented as 'The slug from launchon.it/products/{slug}.' The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully carries that burden, so the baseline score of 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 — 'get' a single product — and enumerates exactly what the listing contains: tagline, description, target audience, problem solved, pricing, tech stack, links, and upvotes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_products or get_launch_calendar by focusing on one product's full public listing.

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 description implies this tool is used when you need the full public listing for one product, rather than searching or viewing calendars/leaderboards. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions such as 'use search_products when you don't have a slug.'

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

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: paid launch tiers affect scheduling only and never rankings, and the live week closes Sunday 23:59 UTC — both are facts that change how an agent interprets results. Return shape and result count behavior are not described.

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 what the tool returns and how it is ordered, followed by the ranking-integrity caveat and the default-week rule. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, ranking integrity, and default behavior — enough to call it correctly. The only omission is any hint about the size/shape of the returned list beyond the implied 'limit', which is minor.

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 50%: 'week' is documented with a pattern and example, and the description adds useful defaults (live week) and the Sunday 23:59 UTC close. 'limit' has no description in either the schema or the description, so the description does not compensate for the gap. 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 ('Ranked products for one ISO week') plus the exact ordering rule ('ordered strictly by community upvotes'), which is more precise than the name/title. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, get_winners, so it falls 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?

The 'Defaults to the live week' note implies when the week parameter can be omitted, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_winners or get_launch_calendar, both of which plausibly return ranked or time-scoped product lists. Usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful ordering and scope context ('newest week first', 'Hall of Fame entries'), which goes beyond annotations. It does not mention response format or edge cases, but those are less critical given the safety hints.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The key facts—resource, ordering, and domain location—are front-loaded and every sentence contributes value.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and safety hints from annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what is returned, ordering, and domain context. It does not spell out the exact meaning of 'weeks', but the schema and context make it reasonably clear.

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?

The single parameter 'weeks' is not directly explained in the description, though the phrase 'from recent weeks' hints at it. The schema supplies defaults, min, and max, so an agent can infer basic semantics, but the description itself adds little direct parameter guidance.

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?

Description states a specific resource ('Top 3 podium finishers') and clear scope ('from recent weeks, newest week first'). It also grounds the resource ('Hall of Fame entries on /winners'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_weekly_leaderboard.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_weekly_leaderboard or get_launch_calendar. The description implies a retrieval use case but never states when this tool is preferred or when to avoid it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description genuinely adds the non-obvious fact that paid tiers affect scheduling only and never ranking, plus the strict upvote ordering — useful context, though it says nothing about result shape, total counts, or whether results are paginated beyond 'limit'.

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 search scope, then the matching and ordering rules, then the ranking caveat. No filler; each sentence contributes distinct 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full annotations, the description covers scope, matching fields, and ranking logic. The main omission is what a result record contains, since there is no output schema, though 'name, tagline, description' hints at the searched fields.

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 50%: 'query' is well documented in the schema with examples, while 'limit' relies on its own min/max/default constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no query syntax, no note that limit caps at 25), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (keyword search across products) plus the exact corpus scope ('every product that has launched on LaunchOnIt') and the fields matched. This clearly separates it from single-item siblings like get_product and list-style siblings like get_weekly_leaderboard.

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 description establishes clear context for use: discovery by keyword across the whole launched catalog. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to alternatives such as get_product when a specific product is already known, or get_winners for curated lists.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds meaningful non-annotation context by stating nothing goes live and nothing is charged, plus that a private review link is returned and a human must sign in to publish. It does not address idempotency (repeat calls), which the annotations flag as non-idempotent.

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 tight sentences ordered as action, result, and safety guarantee. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (what it starts, what it returns, no charge) lead.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the private review link and the human publish step. The shape of the response beyond the link is left implicit, but an agent has enough to call and interpret it.

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 80% and all five parameters are already documented, including the 'drafted if omitted' behavior. The description's list of drafted fields mirrors the schema rather than adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('starts a launch for a product URL') and enumerates what the tool produces (drafted listing, private review link). Every sibling tool is a read/get/list operation, so this write-oriented tool is unmistakably distinct.

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?

Clearly frames the context of use: submit a URL to kick off drafting, then a human reviews and publishes. It does not explicitly name when NOT to use it or point at a sibling alternative, but with the remaining tools being read-only, the selection is unambiguous.

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