gtm_launch_readiness

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses auth/routing context but lacks behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., creating/modifying data), required permissions, rate limits, or what happens upon execution.

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 concise at 5 lines and front-loaded with the action name. It follows a clean docstring pattern. Could be slightly tighter but is already efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema but lacks explanation of what 'launch_readiness' returns. Given the domain-agent action nature and no annotations, the description does not sufficiently inform the agent about the tool's full behavior and output.

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 0%, requiring description to add meaning. The docstring restates parameter names and basic types ('Free-text objective', 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs') but provides no examples, defaults beyond schema, format constraints, or usage hints.

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 clearly states it 'Run the gtm domain agent action launch_readiness', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this action from sibling tools like gtm_market_entry_analysis or gtm_competitive_launch_response, which could also be domain agent actions.

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 mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative gtm tools. No explicit context for when to invoke vs decline.

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