Newest Arc launches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior annotations don't: the shape of each returned record (launchpad, minting wallet, transfer and recipient counts) and the cursor-based paging pattern. It stops short of stating sort order details, chain scope, or rate/limit behavior beyond the schema's limit field.

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: the first defines the payload and the second covers filtering and paging. The resource identity is front-loaded before the operational details.

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 compensates by enumerating what each record contains and how paging works. Remaining minor gaps (explicit ordering guarantee, what happens when both filters are supplied) keep it below a 5.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description merely echoes "via" and "min_transfers" and the paging cursor without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the property descriptions already say.

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 ("Newest Arc token launches") and goes further to describe what each record carries: the minting launchpad, the minting wallet, and transfer/recipient counts. It is clearly not the same as robinx_arc_launchpads or robinx_arc_token, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 second sentence explains how the filters combine ("Filter by launchpad address (via) or minimum transfers") and how to paginate, which implies the use case of browsing fresh launches. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance versus robinx_arc_token, robinx_arc_launchpads, or robinx_feed, which is the main remaining gap.

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