Automatically check launch coverage

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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false but convey nothing about side effects; the description usefully adds that provider calls are read-only, there is no charge or upstream write, and it saves the exact final report while removing blocked destinations. Gaps remain around permissions, reversibility of the removals, and where the report lands.

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?

Three short sentences with the main action front-loaded, which is good. But the cryptic trailing clause 'Six direct submissions minimum' reads as an unexplained rule and the phrase 'preserve prerequisites' is opaque, so not every sentence cleanly 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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers side effects and constraints reasonably, but it omits the only parameter's meaning and leaves the saved report's location and format unspecified. An agent could call it but would not fully predict the outcome.

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 single required parameter intake_id has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no indication of what the intake ID is or where to obtain it. With only one parameter the description had an easy opportunity to explain it and did not.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource (check destinations for a launch, remove blocked ones, preserve prerequisites, save the report), which tells an agent what the tool does. However, terms like 'implemented destinations' and 'preserve prerequisites' are domain jargon, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as run_preflight or get_preflight.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus run_preflight or get_preflight, no mention that it needs an existing launch intake, and no explanation of what 'Six direct submissions minimum' means or when that constraint applies. The agent is left to infer the workflow position entirely.

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