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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: per-call pricing (0.0050 USDC, first call free) and an important risk caveat that a new pool does not imply a legitimate token. However, it omits how far back the scan reaches behaviorally and any rate-limit details.

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 zero waste, front-loading what the tool returns before the caveat and cost. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with complete parameter documentation and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and disclosing cost and a risk caveat. It is close to complete, missing only any note on scan-window behavior or result freshness.

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 schema already documents both limit and windowBlocks with defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and scope: newest Uniswap v3 pools created on Base via PoolCreated events, with returned fields (token symbols, fee tier, block). The purpose is concrete enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it never names the closest alternative (token-due-diligence) explicitly.

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 hints at the use case (finding freshly created pools) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. It does not tell the agent when to reach for this versus token-due-diligence or liquidity-health.

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