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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: results are limited to 50, launches are seconds old, early-flow is pre-aggregated to avoid chain replay, and there is a per-call price and free-tier allowance.

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, each adding new value: what data is returned, how it is aggregated and why that matters, and the cost. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple read-only list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the response fields, result limits, freshness, aggregation behavior, and pricing. An agent has enough information to select and invoke 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 only 50%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter and clarify window semantics. It does this by stating 'up to 50' launches and by referencing the first-N-seconds flow, which maps naturally to window_s. Some explicit parameter naming would improve it further.

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 clearly states the operation and resource: returning the newest pump.fun token launches with a specific set of pre-aggregated metrics. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by targeting recency and early-flow data, so an agent can tell what this tool uniquely provides.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need the most recent launches and want to shortlist tokens without replaying chain data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use case is specific enough that an agent can infer when to choose it.

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