Get Launch Eligibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read' and 'Consumes nothing.' It adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond annotations: the policy selection rule ('newest active when policy_id is omitted') and the disclosure that the revision comes back with its engine state. It doesn't fully cover auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the description adds meaningful value.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed logically by returns, safety, and the special-case workflow. The enumeration of ten blocker codes is long, but each is a stable contract value agents need for downstream branching; it borders on redundancy with the output schema but earns its place overall.

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 3-parameter read tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers purpose, when to call it, what it returns, safety ('Consumes nothing'), the policy default, and the one critical post-call workflow branch (engine_changed). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the only non-obvious parameter, policy_id, including its omission behavior ('newest active when policy_id is omitted'), and clarifies what revision_id yields ('the revision with its engine state'). study_id is left to name inference, but given the tool's pre-launch context, it is trivially inferable. This is strong compensation for a 0%-coverage schema.

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: 'Read, before launching, exactly what launch_study_run would refuse with.' It enumerates the precise deliverable (can_launch plus blockers with stable codes, messages, next_action), which distinguishes it from its siblings launch_study_run (the mutation it preflights), get_study_run, and get_recipe_revision. The first clause alone would differentiate it; the detail makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Gives an explicit temporal trigger ('before launching'), names the sibling it pairs with (launch_study_run), and provides a concrete conditional routing: 'For engine_changed, call refreeze_recipe_revision and launch the new revision; never retry the old one.' The 'never retry' clause is an explicit when-not, which is rare and valuable.

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