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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: cost ($1.00/call in USDC over x402), the optional subscription-token alternative, the depth limit (33 chains), and notably an honesty behavior ('says what it could not establish rather than reporting it clean'). It also discloses the ERC-8376 limitation that 8 of 12 signals cannot exist pre-sale, which is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs.

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 purpose and organized into wallet-verification then launch-specific halves. It is dense and sentence-heavy in the middle, but nearly every clause carries substantive information; only mild trimming would be possible.

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 or annotations exist, so the description must stand alone, and it covers scope, cost, depth limits, and known blind spots well. The main gap is that it doesn't describe the response shape or how 'unable to establish' results are surfaced.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents chain, ticker, creator, and subscription_token. The description adds interpretive context (ticker collision check, creator as the connected wallet), but no per-parameter syntax or defaults 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Screen who is asking to launch') and immediately scopes it against the launch workflow. It enumerates the concrete checks (OFAC SDN, funding chain to depth 33, mixer contact, dusting, control clusters) so the agent knows exactly what the tool does, and it clearly separates itself from post_launch_screening by noting it reports on the party, not the launch.

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 timing context ('before you deploy anything for them') and contrasts itself with sibling wallet_verification by stating it includes the full verification rather than a summary. It does not name alternative tools for the post-launch case or explicitly state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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