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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavior beyond that – the items come back "in order" – but says nothing about format, length beyond the 14-day count, or whether items are static.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the resource while embedding the scope condition. Every clause earns its place.

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 no-parameter, closed-world read tool this covers what an agent needs in order to call it correctly. The only remaining gap is the return shape (a list of day-labeled steps versus prose), which the description leaves implicit and no output schema resolves.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly presents it as a no-argument retrieval, leaving no ambiguity about inputs. Nothing further is needed here.

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 (a 14-day checklist) and states the goal (going from launched to first paying customers) plus an ordering guarantee. It is clearly distinct from get_first_customer_playbook in form, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by the stage framing "going from launched to first paying customers" – an agent can infer this fits the post-launch, pre-revenue moment. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_first_customer_playbook or find_launch_destinations, and no stated preconditions.

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