Chain of Title

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the result documents the evidentiary basis for answers drawn from the register, which tells the agent this is a provenance/metadata call rather than a data call. Return format and size are still unspecified.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core scope statement ('how many launches are on record, since when, from which venues, and what is free versus licensed') is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by listing a distinct dimension of the coverage data.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so at a high level by enumerating the coverage dimensions. It stops short of describing the result's structure or units, so an agent knows the content but not the shape — a modest gap for a zero-parameter read tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to, and does not attempt to, explain inputs.

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 resource — the register's own coverage figures — and enumerates what those figures cover (count of launches, date range, venues, free vs licensed). That is enough to separate it from lookup_launch and search_ticker_or_name, which retrieve individual records rather than register-level metadata, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 is implied rather than specified: 'The result states the basis for any answer drawn from the register' hints that this should be consulted to establish provenance, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for record-level queries. An agent can infer the role but is not told the condition that selects it.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, and the description adds substantial context on top: what is returned (creator's first-block take, bonding-curve buyers, curve completion, self-declared data, finding class), the snapshot-at-creation nature of the record, and the crucial not-observed caveat that absence of an observation is not evidence of safety.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource+key, then the return contents, then the caveat. The second sentence is dense but every clause documents a return field that no output schema covers, so it earns its length.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return payload, and it does so item by item, plus the not-observed case and citation URL. Combined with full parameter coverage and annotation-backed safety profile, nothing needed to call this correctly 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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage (base58, 32-44 characters), so the schema carries the format burden. The description adds only the framing that the mint is the lookup key, which is the baseline expectation rather than new syntactic meaning.

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 (look up), a specific resource (one Solana token launch), the exact key (mint address), and the source register (Chain of Title). The 'by its mint address' framing implicitly separates it from search_ticker_or_name, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 makes clear you must already have a mint address, which implies when it is applicable, but it never names the sibling tools or states when not to use it (e.g. ticker/name lookup goes elsewhere). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: launch identity is copyable, so one name maps to many mints/wallets, and results are dated observations.

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 action, followed by a compact explanation of what makes the search non-trivial and what it returns. Three sentences, all carrying information; only mild density against a fairly simple two-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return contents (count, wallets, recent launches as dated observations). Combined with full parameter coverage and annotations, an agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly, though explicit sibling routing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum for kind is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning — that a name can correspond to many mints from many wallets — but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema examples (PNUT).

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: searching the register for launches by ticker symbol or launch name, and clarifies it returns counts, wallets, and recent launches. It is clearly distinguishable from lookup_launch by its aggregate/multi-result nature, but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts — checking whether a token by a name launched before, or how often a ticker has been reused — which tells the agent when this tool applies. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or routing to archive_status/lookup_launch for narrower queries.

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