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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Live reads, never advice' reinforces the safe read-only nature. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns up to 30 fresh tokens, includes older watched tokens with verdicts, and mentions the GoPlus security check. It does not detail pagination or rate limits, but the added context is valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and key details. It includes the GoPlus attribution and a disclaimer, which are useful but slightly tangential. Overall, it is concise and well-structured, with no wasted sentences.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the data source, the security check, and the non-advice nature. It does not explain the exact format of the returned data, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 parameters (limit and quote). The description adds context about the default limit (15) and the quote behavior (price without running), but these are also in the schema. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving the newest tokens on Robinhood Chain shortly after pool opening, along with the SWOGE AI colony's verdicts. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the unique data source (Robinhood Chain, fresh tokens, colony decisions) and explicitly notes it is a live read, not advice.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('when you want the newest tokens... minutes after their pool opens') and what it returns. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the listed siblings.

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