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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about return fields and differing behavior for operator env keys, but no pagination or rate-limit detail. With annotations carrying the heavy burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with no filler; the core return semantics are front-loaded ahead of the usage guidance. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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, so the description compensates by listing returned fields (mint, ticker, feeShareLocked, pumpUrl). For a simple one-param read tool whose safety profile is in annotations, this is largely complete, though it omits ordering/pagination behavior.

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 single 'limit' parameter (1–100, example 20, default noted) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 ("Return launches") and names the key type and returned fields (mint, ticker, feeShareLocked, pumpUrl). It also distinguishes operator env keys from crew_ak_ keys. Sibling differentiation is present via the reference to crew_launch but not exhaustively against all siblings.

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?

"Use after crew_launch or to recover mint state across retries" gives clear context for when to invoke it. It does not state when-not to use it or name alternative listing tools, but the trigger conditions are explicit.

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