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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which correctly matches a builder that constructs but does not broadcast a transaction. Beyond that the description adds auth/env requirements per platform (BAGS_API_KEY, ZORA_ENABLED, etc.) and the fee-split economics, which the annotations 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a dense but information-bearing platform/fee breakdown. Each clause carries distinct facts, though the run-on platform enumeration is heavy and would read better as a short list.

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 19-parameter builder with no output schema, the description never states what is returned (an unsigned tx payload?) nor directs the agent to the next step (crew_submit_signed). The handoff is central to correct use and is left implicit.

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 only 21% across 19 params, so the description must carry meaning — and it does for platform (per-venue semantics), crew[] sourcing, optInOnly default, and treasuryBps range. However, the majority of params (name, ticker, launcherPubkey, seats, mode, initialBuySol, imageBase64, etc.) get no explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 ('Create UNSIGNED launch transactions') and immediately names the concrete resources it operates on (pumpfun, bags, zora, etc.). The 'UNSIGNED' qualifier distinguishes it from submission siblings like crew_submit_signed without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Gives explicit sourcing guidance — prefer explicit crew[] from crew_list_kols, with Autohire as fallback — and names the env-var prerequisites per platform. It does not explicitly say how this relates to crew_launch or crew_launch_dry_run, so the agent must infer the build-then-submit flow.

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