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.