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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds the key behavioral detail that this is a free read, that polling is expected after transaction submission, and that no callback is needed. The SAP execution guidance further clarifies routing and signer boundaries, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 core behavior and polling trigger are front-loaded in a tight first sentence, followed by a useful parenthetical and a short 'Free read' note. The generic SAP execution guidance paragraph is somewhat boilerplate and repeats 'Free read' with 'Pricing: free,' but the overall description remains compact and readable.

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, idempotent polling tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is polled, when to poll, the no-callback behavior, pricing/routing, and signer boundary. No missing information would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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% and the sole parameter, tokenId, is already described as 'Token UUID returned by the launch builder.' The description only refers to it as 'token id,' adding no meaningful detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll a PerpsPad launch status by token id.' It also clarifies the lifecycle condition ('live' once backing pool confirms on-chain), which distinguishes this polling tool from related PerpsPad market/token/stat tools. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: poll after signing and sending the launch transactions, and explicitly notes no callback is needed. It does not name a sibling alternative or explicitly say when not to use it, but the timing and polling context are concrete enough.

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