Watch for live launches

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral details: blocking up to waitSeconds, early stop at limit, and fallback to a recent launch when nothing appears. This is significant context that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with no fluff. Key information (live watching, blocking, fallback) is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool is a blocking watcher with no output schema. The description covers behavior, fallback, and parameters sufficiently for an agent to know how to invoke it. Minor gap: it does not describe the return format (e.g., what 'returns what appeared' looks like), but the openWorldHint and sibling context partially compensate.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how waitSeconds and limit interact (blocking, early termination) and the includeRecentIfEmpty fallback behavior, which is not fully expressed in the schema alone.

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 watches NOXA + The Odyssey live for new token launches, using a specific verb ('watch') and resource scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get_recent_launches by emphasizing the live/blocking behavior.

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 conveys real-time usage with blocking and early-exit semantics, but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer this over get_recent_launches. Context is clear but no exclusions or alternative pointers are provided.

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