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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description wisely doesn't repeat those. It adds substantial beyond-schema context: the empirical historical basis, the shrinkage toward coarser buckets when samples are thin, the 6-hour rebuild cadence, and pricing with a free tier. These are materially useful behavioral disclosures.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: the primary output, the methodology, the refresh cadence, and the cost. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and no filler or restatement of annotations appears.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the returned value is (empirical graduation rate), how it is computed, when it was last rebuilt, and what it costs. An agent has everything needed 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?

The schema already documents the sole parameter 'mint' with type, format, and description, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond referring implicitly to the launch's first 60 seconds. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 precise statement: 'Probability a pump.fun launch graduates' — a specific resource and measurable outcome. It then distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on empirical graduation odds, not listing, scanning, or pricing. The methodology detail (first 60 seconds, comparable launches) makes its scope unmistakable.

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 makes clear when this tool is relevant: any time an agent needs the statistical graduation probability for a pump.fun launch. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state exclusion conditions, but the specialized purpose is so well-defined that routing confusion is unlikely. This is 'clear context, no exclusions' rather than full explicit when-to-use guidance.

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