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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that — results are pre-filtered for rug risk and carry 'quality signals' — but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or how the quality signals are surfaced. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentence fragment with no filler; the key qualifier ('passed Cookin's rug filters') is placed inline rather than buried. It is efficient, though the missing verb makes it read as a label rather than a statement of action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains thin is behavioral scope — no indication of how many tokens are returned, ranking, or recency window — but for a read-only listing tool this is close to complete.

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?

There is one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the x402 payment header and the Pro-key alternative. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, which is acceptable given the schema coverage but is the baseline rather than an improvement.

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 ('Newly launched Pump.fun tokens') and a specific filter criterion ('passed Cookin's rug filters'), and the adjective 'newly launched' distinguishes it from siblings like list_graduated_tokens and list_pumping_tokens. It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource and scope are unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for discovering fresh launches that survived rug screening. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer scan_token or the graduated/pumping list siblings, and no note on result freshness or limits.

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