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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new context: per-call cost, cost escalation rules, the 20-per-answer cap tied to plan batch size, and the semantics of the verdict including 'unknown' when data is missing. It stops short of discussing rate limits, auth, or ordering of results.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and platforms, then the fields, then the verdict/pricing model — a logical order with no filler sentences. The single dense paragraph is long and could be split into scannable clauses, which keeps it off a 5.

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 so well by enumerating authorities, extensions, liquidity/lock, price/market cap, curve progress, creator history, funding graph, and verdict with reasons. Remaining gaps are result ordering and the two undocumented optional filters.

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 60%, so the description must add value, and it does partially: it ties 'limit' to plan batch size and clarifies the cost effect of 'minutes'. However, include_collapsed and min_liquidity_usd get no explanation anywhere in description or schema, leaving real gaps.

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+resource: fresh token/pool launches on Solana across seven named platforms within a look-back window, and enumerates what each record carries (authorities, Token-2022 extensions, liquidity, verdict). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling new_launches_batch, which is the one thing an agent most needs to distinguish.

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?

Implied usage (triage of newly created tokens) is clear and pricing/cost cues are given (0.005 USDC per call, surcharge for >60 min windows or >20 launches). But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as new_launches_batch or token_deep_check.

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