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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that data is 'LIVE', explains that 'new' tokens are 'just-launched, earliest + riskiest', and mentions the token address allows chaining to robinhood_token_safety. It does not cover rate limits or return format but provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('LIVE Robinhood-chain token discovery'). Every sentence contributes value: the first defines the tool, the second details kinds and usage. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, the kind values, and a use case. It mentions that results carry the token's 0x address, giving a hint of output structure, but does not fully describe the return format.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each kind means, especially the riskiness of 'new' and the volume-based definition of 'gainers/top'. This goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 tool's purpose: 'LIVE Robinhood-chain token discovery -- what's moving on Robinhood right now.' It lists the specific kinds (trending, new, gainers/top) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on Robinhood chain tokens.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'Use for 'what's pumping / new / trending on Robinhood', 'top Robinhood coins right now'.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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