Debut of the Day

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: with no date it returns the most recent *finished* day's winner, which tells the agent about partial-day handling not captured by readOnlyHint/idempotentHint. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the marginal disclosure here is meaningful. It does not describe failure behavior for a future or empty date.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: what it returns, the default-behavior rule, and the routing condition. The most decision-relevant fact (top launch of a day) is front-loaded with 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?

Sufficient for a single optional-param, read-only lookup: purpose, default, and usage triggers are all covered. Remaining gap is the shape of a 'launch' returned and what happens when a day has no data, which matters slightly more given there is no output schema.

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 100% and the single `date` parameter already documents the YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) pattern and its default. The description only restates the default in prose, adding no format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 resource and scope: the top-ranked launch for a single day on CodeDebut, which is clearly distinguishable from list-style siblings like get_launches or get_trending that it does not merely restate. The verb is implicit ('returns') rather than stated, but the resource framing is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly names the user intents that should route here: 'best new product', 'recommendation of the day', 'something new to try'. It also explains the no-argument fallback. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (e.g. get_trending for multi-day popularity) or stating when not to use it.

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