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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Free read' and the SAP execution guidance about signer boundary (hosted reads never receive keypair bytes), which clarifies execution constraints. This is extra context beyond annotations but consistent with them. 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 core purpose and sort options are front-loaded in a single sentence. The subsequent SAP MCP execution guidance paragraph is boilerplate repeated across tools, but it is clearly separated and does not obscure the tool-specific information. It is slightly verbose but acceptable given the execution context.

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?

The description lists the token fields returned, includes sort and pagination parameters, and the schema covers all parameters. With an output schema (as indicated by context signals) and the description's field list, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. The SAP guidance adds operational context. No critical information is missing.

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%, so limit and offset are fully described in the schema (max, min, pagination). The description adds value by specifying that 'newest' is the default sort and that 'raised' means 'most SOL raised first', which the schema does not explain. This goes beyond the schema's enum label 'Sort order'.

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?

Description states 'List PerpsPad launched tokens' with a clear verb and resource, then enumerates the returned fields (ticker, name, mint, backing perp, quote token, SOL raised, migration status, pool addresses) and sort options. This distinguishes it from singular siblings like sap_perpspad_get_token and event-specific sap_perpspad_get_token_events, so an agent can identify it immediately.

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 clear context: it is the plural listing tool for PerpsPad tokens, with sort options and pagination. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the name and content imply it is for enumerating tokens rather than fetching a single token or event history. The context is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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