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

Annotations only cover readOnly and openWorld, so the description earns credit for disclosing the returned fields, the presence of a risk badge, the swapUrl behavior, and the obligation to render the `display` markdown to the user. It omits things like empty-result behavior, rate limits, or freshness/latency caveats for a live-data tool.

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 what the tool returns and the safety mandate; almost every sentence carries information. The trailing playbook workflow list is somewhat tangential to invoking this specific tool and could be shortened.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields, the display payload, and the risk badge. Still missing practical call guidance such as what happens when no new pairs exist or how the two sources are merged/ordered.

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 83%, so the schema already documents chain, window, maxAgeHours, minVolumeUsd and minLiquidityUsd. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, not even that `limit` is undocumented in the schema — baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Newest token pairs"), names both data sources (GeckoTerminal new pools, DexScreener latest profiles) and the sort order ("youngest first"). That cleanly separates it from siblings like scan_trending and scan_movers without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives clear operating context (extremely risky asset class, always show risk level/flags/disclaimer, suggest token_risk before swapping) and routes to swapchan_playbook for workflows. It does not explicitly name scan_trending or scan_movers as the alternatives for non-new tokens, so the exclusion is only implied by "newest".

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