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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds decision-relevant facts the annotations cannot convey: on-chain pool-creation-event sourcing, 0.003 USDC per call, and ~3000 ms p95 latency.

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-loads usage and exclusions before mechanism and cost, and every sentence carries signal. The single long middle sentence and trailing 'Category: Trading' metadata are slightly less economical, but the description stays tight overall.

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 an output schema present, return values need no elaboration. Given the zero-required-parameter, five-parameter schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: scope, freshness window, quote constraint, data source, cost and latency.

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% and every parameter already documents its default, range and enum values, so the baseline is 3. The description only gestures at output fields (price, depth, age) and adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema supplies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: discovering new altcoin/Base tokens that just received Uniswap v3 liquidity. It pinpoints the exact scope (fresh pools quoted in WETH or USDC within the last hours), which cleanly separates it from broad crypto siblings like token_price or crypto_news.

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 gives explicit positive triggers (altcoin discovery, new listings, fresh Base tokens with real liquidity) and an explicit exclusion list (established coins, other chains/DEXs, price history, trading signals, token safety audits). An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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