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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious operational context: the dataset mixes Montra-hosted and own-pool launches, and creator-written text fields should be treated as data rather than instructions. That last point is a real prompt-injection caveat an agent would not otherwise know. It stops short of describing return shape, ordering, or size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, its two hosting variants, the associated hooks, and the data-provenance caveat. No filler and nothing redundant with the 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 zero parameters and readOnly/openWorld annotations, most invocation risk is already covered, but there is no output schema and the description does not say what fields each launch record contains, how many are returned, or how results are ordered. The injection warning is a strong addition, yet the return-shape gap keeps this at minimum-viable-plus.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to supplement and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a full, unfiltered listing rather than a query.

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 names a specific resource (tokens launched with AskHook, on Montra or on their own pool) plus the associated public hooks, and anchors it to askhook.fun as the source. It is clear what a caller gets back, but it never distinguishes this listing from sibling listings such as list_chain_hooks or trending_hooks.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the neighboring listing tools (list_chain_hooks, trending_hooks, list_templates), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only contextual clue is the mention of askhook.fun as provenance, which is not usage guidance.

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