launch_signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value by revealing the ranking heuristic and that results are scoped to a look-back window, but it says nothing about cost, rate limits, or result ordering guarantees.

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 front-loaded sentence that puts the returned entity first and the ranking factors after. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and the ranking logic is described. However, for a heuristic/analytical tool with four siblings in the same domain-history space, the definition omits any routing guidance or caveats about false positives, leaving a gap in how to deploy 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 description coverage is 75% – days, domain and response_format are documented in the schema, only 'top' lacks a description. The description gestures at the time window ('in the window') but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb-like result ('product-like names that first appeared under a domain') and enumerates the ranking signals (newness, several hostnames, staging/beta/preview variants, product words), so an agent knows what comes back. It does not distinguish this from siblings like new_subdomains or subdomain_timeline, which return adjacent data, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools that cover overlapping data (new_subdomains, subdomain_timeline, hostname_history). The use case can be inferred from 'upcoming launch' but the agent is left to guess when this beats the alternatives.

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