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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context beyond them: per-call pricing (0.005 USDC), that longer windows cost more, and the concrete payload contents (authority flags, liquidity/lock, creator history, first-buyer funding graph, sniper detection). It does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or what happens when no launches match.

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 and data sources are front-loaded, the returned-field list is dense but information-bearing, and the pricing sentence carries non-obvious cost information. No filler or redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden by enumerating the fields an agent will receive. It is nearly complete for a read tool, with the only gap being unexplained semantics for the three undocumented input parameters.

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 40%: minutes and platforms are documented in the schema, while limit, include_collapsed, and min_liquidity_usd have no descriptions. The description mirrors the platform list and the time window but adds no meaning for the three undocumented parameters, so it only marginally compensates.

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 tokens/pools on Solana), enumerates the exact data sources (pump.fun, LetsBonk, Raydium LaunchLab, Meteora DBC, etc.), and specifies the look-back scope. An agent can distinguish this from token_deep_check or new_launches_batch by the 'just launched, last N minutes' framing plus the returned data set.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'new launches' framing and the cost hint ('Windows over 60 minutes cost more') steers window selection, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to siblings such as new_launches_batch, token_deep_check, or pool_health.

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