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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true, but the description does not disclose any destructive behavior, nor does it address openWorldHint or idempotentHint false. This leaves a significant transparency gap, as agents may assume a safe read operation based on the 'get' framing.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the main action and no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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?

The description omits return format, pagination, and any explanation for the destructiveHint annotation. Given the tool's query nature and the surprising annotations, more context on side effects or data scope would be necessary for complete understanding.

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?

The schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'chain optional for all networks,' which duplicates the schema's info and provides no new semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves tokens launched within a time window, with optional chain filtering. This is specific and distinguishes it from other token-related tools like dex_token_list_swap_tokens or dex_token_ranking.

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 implies usage for finding tokens by creation time but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other token listing tools. No alternatives are mentioned, so usage context is only implied rather than explicit.

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