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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: source rooms are never identified, no message text is returned, a room count is included instead, every response carries corpus_through for freshness, the distribution is bimodal, and the cost is $0.03 USDC. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs before invoking.

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 core definition is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is dense, earning its place. The pricing clause is slightly redundant ('Costs $0.03 USDC on Base. (paid $0.03, or included in a RobinX plan key — see instructions)'), restating the same figure twice.

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, so the description must carry return-value burden, and it does: the two timestamps, the signed lead, the room count, corpus_through, and the corpus-wide aggregate note are all described. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (token) and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting it as a '0x…' Robinhood Chain token address. The description adds 'one Robinhood Chain token' but no format or scoping detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource — cross-venue first sighting for one Robinhood Chain token — and enumerates the exact outputs (first Telegram timestamp, first X timestamp, signed lead in minutes). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like robinx_mentions or robinx_social_momentum, which deal with raw mentions or momentum rather than first-sighting ordering.

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 when it's useful (deciding which venue called a token first) and warns to use the per-token number rather than the corpus average, but it never explicitly names an alternative sibling or states when NOT to use it. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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