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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it flags 'Unvetted: many new pools are spam', discloses the response is partly derived from the vendor's own launch history rather than chain state, and states the $0.01 USDC on Base x402 payment requirement. It stops short of return shape, pagination, or failure behavior when a window is empty.

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 the core answer (what pools, what window, which venues) and the returned fields follow, with the cost and spam caveat last where they belong. The middle is a long semicolon-chained clause that is dense but not padded — every element names something returned.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (token symbols/decimals, fee tier, v4 hooks, quote-asset pairing, quote liquidity, risk score, venue liquidity-loss history) and covers the payment model and data caveat. An agent can decide whether to call it and predict what comes back without opening anything else.

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 coverage is 100%, so both limit and minutes are already fully documented in the schema, and the description adds only a loose restatement of the minutes window. No extra meaning about pool-count tradeoffs or what a wider window does to spam ratio is added, so 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 names the resource precisely — newly created trading pools — and pins it to Ethereum across three named Uniswap venues, which separates it from the arbitrum_/base_/optimism_ new_pools siblings. It lacks an explicit verb and never names those siblings as the alternative for other chains, so an agent must infer the routing from the chain name alone.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the 'last N minutes' framing and the launch-history risk score signal a new-pool discovery workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to token_risk_check or eth_token_snapshot for deeper vetting of a specific pool.

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