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

Annotations already establish readOnly and openWorld safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered newest-first, each item carries a risk score, and calls do not consume the daily quota. It stops short of describing pagination or result size behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its sources, followed by the ordering and cost note. No redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a read-only list tool with three fully documented optional filters and no output schema, the definition covers scope, ordering, included fields, and quota cost. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or whether results can be empty.

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?

All three optional parameters (limit, maxRisk, sinceMs) have full schema descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra semantics such as what 'graduated' means for filtering or how risk scores are computed.

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 ('newest tokens on Robinhood Chain'), scopes it to concrete sources (new Uniswap v4 Pools.trade launches and graduated launchpad tokens), and states the ordering and included risk score. It is clearly distinguishable from the generic latest_launches sibling by the chain qualifier, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 context is only implicit: the mention of an embedded rug-check risk score hints that a separate rugcheck_robinhood call may be unnecessary, and 'free, does not count toward the daily limit' signals a cost-free quota. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative.

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