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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a lighter burden here. It adds the behavioral nuance that the returned profiles are newly 'created' and span 'cross-chain', which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not conflict with any annotation.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded phrase that states the core scope in fewer than ten words. There is no filler or repetition; every word carries meaning.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and its scope. An agent can confidently invoke it without needing additional information about inputs, side effects, or return value format.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully clear. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to document.

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 identifies the resource (token profiles) and scope (newest, cross-chain), and the plural 'profiles' signals it lists multiple items. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the intent is straightforward. It differs from siblings like latest_boosted_tokens by emphasizing 'created' profiles, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 the tool is for getting the newest token profiles regardless of chain, but it gives no explicit 'when to use' advice or comparisons to alternatives such as latest_boosted_tokens or token_boost. An agent must infer that for recently created token profiles, this is the tool, which is adequate but not explicit.

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