get_launch_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds a key behavioral constraint: 'Returns only launches newer than the specified time.' However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, possible limits, pagination, response format, or error behavior, leaving some ambiguity for a 'get' tool.

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 description is three concise, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds value: purpose, use case, and behavior. There is no fluff or repetition, making it appropriately sized.

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 simple polling tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, why it's useful, and the time-filter behavior. It lacks details about the response structure or limits, which could be important, but the simplicity of the tool and the clarity of the parameter make it mostly complete.

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?

The schema already documents the parameter fully (since_minutes_ago with default 60 and a clear description). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, aside from referring to 'a given timestamp' which is slightly inconsistent with the actual minutes-based parameter, but the schema resolves this. Thus, the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a feed of token launches since a given timestamp, with a scope defined by time. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like 'watch_launches' via the word 'polling' and 'feed', but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools such as watch_launches.

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 description explicitly states the primary use case: 'Useful for polling new launches periodically.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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