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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: what gets risk-checked, the three verdict tiers, liquidity thresholds implicitly, and that results include sell simulation and v4 hook powers.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with resource and scope followed by the risk-checking detail. Every clause earns its place, though the nested enumeration makes it harder to scan.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does reasonably well, naming the fields an agent will get (liquidity, sell simulation, hook powers, first trades, verdict). It could say more about ordering or result shape, but the essential content is present.

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%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema, and the description adds little beyond restating the 60-minute look-back and the two chains. The description's 'Base or Ethereum' actually narrows what the chain enum description lists (arbitrum, optimism, polygon), a mild inconsistency rather than added clarity.

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 resource (new token launches), scope (last hour, Base/Ethereum), and the exact enrichment performed (Uniswap v2/v3/v4/Aerodrome pools vs ETH/WETH/USDC with liquidity checks, sell simulation, verdict). An agent can distinguish this from token.risk, which checks a single known token.

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 implies the use case (discovering freshly-launched tokens with risk verdicts) but never states when to prefer this over siblings like token.risk, market.opportunities, or decision.lite, nor any exclusions. Usage is left to inference.

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