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

The description discloses that the tool only returns a sign link and nothing happens until the user approves it in their wallet, which is a crucial asynchronous behavior. It also discloses economic consequences (creator earns 0.4%, user pays ~0.027 SOL rent plus first buy) and the image fallback behavior. These details go far beyond the annotations, which carry no behavioral hints.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the approval flow and consequences, and the third covers costs and image guidance. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the 10-parameter schema and absence of output schema, the description covers the essential flow: sign link, wallet approval, creator role, fees, and costs. It could go further by mentioning that post-approval status can be tracked via anchorpad_request_status, but this is a minor omission for a launch-prepare tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the image parameter (allowed formats, size limit, fallback to user-provided image on approval page), for pair (explicitly drawn from anchorpad_pairs), and clarifies first_buy as part of the launch transaction. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 prepares a new Solana coin on AnchorPad, paired with an asset from anchorpad_pairs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on launch preparation and returning a sign link. The verb 'prepare' plus the resource and the sign-link flow make the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to launch a new coin, and it explicitly references anchorpad_pairs for the pairing asset. It does not name alternatives like anchorpad_prepare_trade or specify when not to use it, but the sibling list and pairing reference make the intended use clear enough.

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