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 lists the implicit safety gates (mint and freeze authority must be disabled, small dev supply, liquidity/holder/top-10 concentration limits), honestly flags that "baharu" mode has unindexed liquidity, and discloses cost ($0.0100 USDC per call) and the x402 POST endpoint. It stops short of rate limits or what a rejected/failed payment returns.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the resource and its screening criteria, then append mode semantics, pricing and endpoint. Every clause carries information, though the pricing/endpoint tail could reasonably live in structured metadata rather than the description.

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 six-parameter filtering tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing context: what qualifies a token, how the two modes differ, and what the call costs. The only real gap is that it never sketches the shape of the returned token list.

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 the six parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of the threshold filters (liquidity/holders/top-10 must pass "your limits") and notes that maks_umur_hari applies only to organik mode, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb+resource: it returns filtered young Solana tokens that pass a stated safety screen, with a second "baharu" mode for raw recent launches. An agent can grasp the scope without opening the schema, but the description never distinguishes this tool from lookalike siblings such as saring-token or banding-token.

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 explicitly contrasts the two modes: "organik" (default, young tokens with trading plus full screening) versus "baharu" (latest launches, audit only, liquidity not yet indexed). The condition selecting each mode is stated, though there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling filter/screener tools.

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