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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the $0.01 cost and the fact that results are seconds-to-minutes-old and decay quickly, which affects how an agent should treat and re-fetch the data.

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?

Two compact sentences with the scope and default chain front-loaded, then the payload contents and price. The middle fragment ('Age, liquidity, buy/sell flow and conservative risk flags') is list-like but earns its place as a return-value summary.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and discloses cost and data volatility. The remaining gap is result-set size or pagination behavior — an agent cannot tell how many pools come back or whether a cap applies.

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 chain, minLiquidity and maxAgeMinutes. The description restates the chain default ('Solana (default) ... via chain') but adds no syntax, units or interaction details beyond that, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 the resource precisely: brand-new token pools, default Solana with a chain override, and signals freshness ('seconds to minutes old'). This distinguishes it in spirit from get_trending_pools, but never names that sibling, so the agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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 phrase 'the most perishable data here' hints at when this tool is the right pick (recency-sensitive queries) and the default chain is stated, but there is no explicit when-not condition and no named alternative for established or trending pools.

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