pons_can_launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only check and names the three values that determine the answer, which is far more transparent than a vague 'Check address status'. It does not mention handling of invalid addresses or any network-related assumptions, but the core behavior is clear.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause adds value by naming the actual flags involved. There is no repetition of the tool name or 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 single-parameter, read-only check with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what will be evaluated and what the key result fields are; there is no other critical information an agent would need before calling the tool.

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 covers the address parameter with a description, and coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a small bit of context by tying the address to launch permission, but it does not add format, chain, or additional parameter meaning 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 states a specific action—checking address launch eligibility on Pons—and enumerates the exact factors involved (canLaunch, whitelistedLaunchers, global launchEnabled flag). This clearly distinguishes it from launch-related siblings like pons_preview_launch and pons_launch_costs.

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 'right now' phrasing implies this is a current-state eligibility check, which is reasonable guidance. However, the description never explicitly contrasts it with sibling tools or says when alternatives such as pons_preview_launch should be chosen instead.

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