china_launches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it names the upstream source (Launch Library 2 with search=China), states auth is not required, and explains the dual return channels (content summary vs structuredContent JSON). It omits error/rate-limit behavior, but the essential behavioral context is present.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by data source, output format, and args. Slightly verbose with the upstream-source explanation, but each block serves a purpose and nothing is 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, the source, the return structure, and both parameters' behavior. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly, though it could note the global-scope alternative for completeness.

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, and it does: it documents limit (default 8, max 15) and status with example values ('Go for Launch', 'To Be Determined') plus the omit-for-all behavior. The max-15 cap and status examples are meaning the schema itself does not convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('returns Chinese rocket launch schedule') and scopes it precisely to China, naming the Long March series and private firms (LandSpace). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like upcoming_launches and russia_launches without the agent needing to open a schema.

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 China-only scope implicitly differentiates it from upcoming_launches and russia_launches, and the status filter use is explained. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states when to prefer this over the global launch tool, leaving routing to inference.

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