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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this while adding genuine context: what it returns (AskUserQuestion-shaped questions, per-first-buy cost estimates, field limits) and that a user confirmation step must precede launch_token. It does not describe failure modes or rate limits, so it stops short of 5.

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 safety profile is front-loaded in the first clause, then the trigger, then the inputs, then the return contract and next step. Four sentences, each carrying distinct routing or contract information with no padding.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the three return categories (questions, estimates, field limits). Combined with 100% schema coverage on 14 optional params, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 14 fields including limits and formats. The description adds only the framing that all inputs are optional pre-decisions and that estimates are keyed to first-buy choices; no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns questions and cost estimates for a token launch, and explicitly says it 'creates nothing and moves no funds.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling launch_token by positioning itself as the first step before it, so an agent can route between the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call this first when the user wants to launch a token'), an input rule ('Pass anything they have already decided'), and a follow-up condition ('Ask the questions and confirm the summary with the user before calling launch_token'). The alternative tool and the ordering constraint are both named.

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