china_launches

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full load. It does disclose the hard cap of 15 results and the default of 8, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, and the read-only nature is clear from 'returns'. However, it says nothing about result ordering (presumably by launch date), data freshness, or what happens for out-of-range limits.

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 scope sentence is front-loaded and every line of the Args block contributes concrete information; there is no filler. The formatting follows a conventional docstring pattern, though nothing special is done to prioritize the routing decision an agent faces.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the definition should describe what a returned launch entry contains (rocket, pad, launch window, status, time zone) and any sorting. It documents the inputs adequately but leaves the shape and ordering of results entirely unspecified, which is a real gap for a listing tool with zero structured support.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters – and it does: limit with its default of 8 and maximum of 15, and status with example values plus the meaning of omission (all statuses). The only shortfall is that the full set of status values is not enumerated, only two examples given, so an agent may pass an invalid string.

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 (returns China's rocket launch schedule) and scopes it precisely by including both Long March and private operators such as LandSpace. That geographic/operator scope implicitly separates it from upcoming_launches and russia_launches, but those siblings are never named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this for Chinese launches' from the scope statement, and the status argument notes that omitting it returns all statuses. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer upcoming_launches or russia_launches instead, and no prerequisites or caveats.

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