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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description layers on genuinely new operational context: $0.01 per call, 10 free/day, x402 payment-required results, and isError behavior for invalid input or upstream failure without charging. This is exactly the kind of detail structured fields cannot express.

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 dense but front-loaded sentences: what it returns, then scope, then usage, then cost and error behavior. No filler, though the metric enumeration and pricing/error tail make it longer than strictly minimal.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still names the metrics and coverage window, and it covers pricing, error semantics, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly 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% and the single parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real disambiguation by specifying the parameter must be the dev wallet rather than the mint address, which the schema's pattern alone cannot convey.

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 — a creator wallet's launch history — and enumerates the exact outputs (launches, graduation rate, cadence, sell speed, verdict). This is clearly distinct from siblings like pump_wallet, token_risk, or launch_scan.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' block tells the agent to pass the dev wallet, not the mint, and names a sibling (pump_token) that surfaces the dev of a mint. It also states the scope of coverage (since recording began, 15 most recent launches), so the agent knows when this tool is and is not the right fit.

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