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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by noting it reads directly from Solana mainnet, is an authoritative on-chain source, and includes the signer boundary that 'hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes.' These are value-added details beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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 organized into two focused paragraphs: one on the tool's function and one on SAP MCP execution guidance. It is dense but not bloated; however, the SAP MCP guidance repeats verbatim in the input schema description, creating minor redundancy. The key message is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional filter, the description is complete: it states the source, the exact returned data fields, the intended use case, and the pricing/routing workflow. The presence of an output schema means the description does not need to detail return structures, and the low complexity means no gaps are apparent.

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 schema covers the single parameter poolName with a full description including enum values and default behavior ('Omit for all pools'), giving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description adds little beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies since the structured schema already handles the parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Read all Adrena custody accounts directly from Solana mainnet and return real market data for every supported asset' with a detailed field list, making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It also positions itself as 'the authoritative source for what markets Adrena supports,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like sap_adrena_get_pool_info or adrena_getPositions.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use this before opening positions to verify leverage limits and trade availability.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is practical and action-oriented.

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