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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation behavior: the price, the refusal-before-payment guarantee on a stale feed, and the divergence from launches_since. It doesn't cover pagination or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: price first, then the resource, then the value-add (screening), then the alternative, then the stale-feed guarantee, then the schema URI. No sentence is padding.

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?

Five optional parameters are schema-described, an output schema exists for return shape, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still supplies the business context an agent cannot get from structure: cost, the polling sibling, and the stale-feed refusal.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions the field meanings only through the card summary ('curve SOL, buyers, concentration, flags') and does not add syntax or defaults beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with the price, then the resource ('the newest pump.fun memecoin launches'), the format ('compact cards'), and the field set. An agent can distinguish this from new_launches_free and launches_since purely from the text.

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?

It states not only when to use it ('screen new launches') but names the polling alternative ('poll with launches_since ($0.001)') and the failure mode ('Stale feed: refused before payment'). That is an explicit when/when-not/alternatives triad.

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