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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description is not carrying the safety burden; instead it adds real behavior: a hard 50-per-page cap, distinct sort orders per status, coverage windows of 90/30 days, which fields are conditionally populated ('where known'), and the data provenance (AlphaGrowth, free). It stops short of describing total-result counts or pagination limits beyond the schema's page maximum.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and page size, then modes, then return fields, then filter and sibling pointers — a sensible ordering with no filler. The single long sentence chains many clauses, which makes it denser than ideal but not padded.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (categories, website, description, price, market cap, TVL where known). All three parameters are covered and the sibling relationships are resolved, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the sort order implied by each status value (soonest first vs newest first) and the instruction to consult categories for valid slugs. That is meaningful semantic lift over the enum descriptions.

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 and ordering axis: 'New crypto projects by launch date' with an explicit page size, and it distinguishes itself from two siblings by pointing TGE data to upcoming_tges and category slugs to categories. An agent can tell immediately what this returns versus find_projects or upcoming_tges without opening a schema.

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?

It clearly states the two operating modes (launching in the next 90 days, launched in the last 30) and routes token-generation-event queries to upcoming_tges, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not contrast itself with find_projects or rank_projects, so the sibling routing is only partial.

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