Pay for an approved launch through HTTP402

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'No payment is made by this tool,' which resolves the misleading title. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations — owner authorization requirement and a concrete price point ($99 new-launch offer) — though 'payment starts automatic submissions' is vague about what actually triggers side effects and where.

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 tight sentences with the read-only constraint front-loaded immediately after the resource, so the most decision-relevant fact arrives early. The trailing clause about automatic submissions is compressed to the point of ambiguity, which costs a point.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the core needs are covered. However, since no output schema exists, the description should hint at what the returned 'protocol instructions' contain (e.g. an HTTP 402 challenge or payment target), and it does not.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents only the UUID format, not the meaning of launch_id. The description adds one qualifier — the launch must be 'approved' — but conveys nothing about where the launch_id comes from or what state it must be in beyond that.

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 and resource — it returns read-only protocol instructions for a given launch_id — and explicitly counters the title's implication that it pays. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as create_checkout or get_order, so an agent must still infer which of the payment-adjacent tools is the right entry point.

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?

It states a prerequisite (owner authorization for the saved launch amount) and a downstream consequence (payment starts automatic submissions), which implies the usage context. It never says when to choose this over create_checkout or what happens if the launch is not yet approved, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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