get_launch

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's job is lighter. It adds 'checklist' context, but does not elaborate on behavior like idempotency or potential data mutation, which is acceptable given annotations. No contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus usage hints. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, using minimal words without redundancy.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description gives the core functionality and usage guidance but lacks detail on what 'checklist' refers to or the return structure. For a read-only tool, it is minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (launch_id described as 'Launch ID from list_launches'). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'Get' and resource 'launch details with checklist', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_launch_section and get_launch_task by implying a broader scope, but does not explicitly define what 'details' includes, preventing a 5.

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 provides explicit USE WHEN ('Tell me about this launch', 'Launch readiness') and FAILS WHEN conditions, including guidance to get valid IDs from list_launches. However, it does not compare this tool with alternatives like get_launch_section, so it misses the 'when not to use' aspect.

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