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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is non-custodial, returns the unsigned transaction instead of broadcasting, and describes the fee model on each chain. It does not explicitly state the on-chain irreversibility, but that is partially covered by schema notes like 'immutable' and 'irreversible.'

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by the non-custodial guarantee and the fee-relevant chain distinction. Every sentence earns its place given the complexity of the operation.

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 17-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow: it returns an unsigned transaction with to/value/data for the user to sign. It also explains the multi-chain fee nuance, which matters for choosing chain_id. It doesn't enumerate every response field, but the input schema is highly detailed and the description gives enough to understand the tool's role and output shape.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only gives high-level context about fees and chains. The schema descriptions carry the detail for individual parameters.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Launch a token on Robinhood Chain.' It also explains the outcome — returning an unsigned createToken transaction — which clearly distinguishes this from sibling read/list/quote tools like launchpad_get_token, launchpad_list_tokens, and launchpad_trade_quote.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when the user wants to launch a token and needs an unsigned transaction for their own wallet to sign. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is unambiguous and no exclusions are needed given the specialized launch action.

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