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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: free/no payment, rate-limited per client, counts-only return, ready-to-send paid call when new_tokens > 0, and polling-bot orientation. It does not contradict 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 description is front-loaded with the free/no-payment point, then explains counts, limits, paid alternative, and polling use. It is dense but efficient. Minor redundancy exists between 'Free, no payment needed' and 'peek for free,' but nothing is wasted overall.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (counts, distinct tokens, by DEX, latest block) and what is not returned (addresses, names, risk verdicts). It also covers payment model, rate limits, and the paid sibling alternative, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 schema already fully documents via, minutes, and since_block. The description mentions since_block/minute semantics and polling with latest_block, but adds little beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (counts), resource (pools created against WETH/ETH/USDC), scope (Uniswap v2/v3/v4 and Aerodrome on Base), and time basis (since_block or minutes). It clearly distinguishes itself from the paid new_token_launches sibling by explaining that this tool returns only counts.

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 says when to use this tool (free polling: 'peek for free, pay only when new_tokens > 0') and when to use the alternative (paid new_token_launches for token addresses, names, and risk verdicts). The when-not condition is implied by the paid alternative and rate limit.

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