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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: freshness, source precompile, return fields, pricing, rate limits, auth requirements, and the safety caveat that new tokens are not necessarily safe. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core purpose and remains information-dense without fluff. Each sentence adds value: technical origin, returned fields, use case, safety warning, pricing, and access method. The structure is easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the essential operational details: what is listed, where it comes from, what fields are returned, pricing, auth, and a safety follow-up. Minor gaps include unclear limit semantics and no explicit pagination or ordering details, but for a simple discovery list this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The only parameter, 'limit', has a minimal 'How many' description, and the tool description does not clarify limits, defaults, or formatting. The description adds no real parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the tool lists newly created B20 tokens on Base from the B20Factory precompile, with a specific verb and resource. It conveys the discovery-feed purpose but does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like b20_mint_watch or new_tokens.

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 gives clear context: it is a discovery feed for agents hunting new B20 launches early, and it instructs users to run b20-safety before touching any address. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the use case is well conveyed.

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