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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does disclose the key ordering ('newest first'), the call categories, and the returned fields. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has rate limits, or how pagination behaves beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and ordering before listing output fields. It is concise, though the semicolon-separated field list and jargon make it slightly run-on rather than maximally structured.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description does a reasonable job listing returned fields and ordering. It still leaves 'min_score' unexplained and does not clarify the relationship between launch records and newest pairs, which limits completeness for an agent building a correct call.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description usefully expands the 'call' parameter by listing the values REAL, WATCH, THIN, and FARM beyond the schema's 'e.g. REAL'. However, the 'min_score' parameter has no schema description and is not explained in the description, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 ('New stonkfun launches from T7's launch radar') and ordering ('newest first'), and lists the returned fields, so the agent can tell it is a launch-radar listing tool. It does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings such as get_coins or get_top, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives among the sibling tools. The implied context is 'new launches', but the agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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