gtm_launch_readiness

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). It does not explain side effects, permissions required, or the nature of the action (e.g., whether it modifies data). Since annotations exist but the description provides no supplemental transparency, the score is minimal above zero.

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 short, but it is not well-structured because it leads with a tautology and then provides generic plumbing details ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher') that are likely common to all domain-agent actions, not specific to this tool. It wastes space without providing actionable 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?

The tool lacks any context about its purpose, when it should be used, what it returns, or how it relates to other tools. With an output schema declared but not described, and no mention of side effects or dependencies, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to decide when or how to invoke 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?

The schema gives no descriptions for the parameters; the description adds only generic hints: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. These are vague and do not clarify what kind of objective or what structured inputs are expected, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 only repeats the tool name ('Run the gtm domain agent action `launch_readiness`') without explaining what the action does, what resource it operates on, or what outcomes to expect. It fails to distinguish this from the many other domain-agent actions in the sibling list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It does not mention specific scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions under which 'launch_readiness' would be appropriate, leaving the agent without any selection criteria.

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