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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: result ordering (newest first), the time window semantics, filtering behavior, and the domain warning that most launches stop trading within hours. Return shape is broadly described.

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-loads the core scope, then parameters, then the warning and follow-up. Every sentence is doing work; sizing is appropriate for a three-parameter tool with no output schema, though it packs several ideas tightly together.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields (launchpad, market cap, liquidity, 24h volume, 1h/24h change), which covers the return-value burden well. The only real gap is the unexplained limit parameter.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains hours (1-72, default 6) and min_mc_usd semantics, but 'limit' is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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+resource+­scope: 'Tokens launched on Robinhood Chain in the last hours, newest first', and enumerates the payload (launchpad, market cap, liquidity, volume, changes). An agent can distinguish it from screening/analysis siblings at a glance.

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 clear context (recent launches) and explicitly routes follow-up to rh_token_snapshot or rh_token_safety, plus a caveat that 'a new launch is a listing, not a pick'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling launch_waves, leaving that comparison to inference.

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