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.