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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it reads from Solana mainnet via RPC and provides SAP execution guidance on pricing and signer boundaries. This adds meaningful context beyond annotations, though it could mention potential network costs explicitly. 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 return data, followed by a separate SAP execution guidance block. It is concise with no wasted words. The guidance block is somewhat boilerplate but still relevant. Minor deduction for potential redundancy across SAP tools.

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?

Given the simple input (one optional enum parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and execution model adequately. It does not need to explain return values. The combination of description, annotations, and schema provides sufficient completeness for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 single parameter 'poolName' is fully documented in the schema with enums and description ('Pool name. Supported: main-pool, commodities-pool'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it implicitly connects the parameter to the pool data returned.

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 'Read Adrena pool statistics directly from the on-chain Pool account' and lists specific return fields (TVL, LP token price, etc.), providing a clear purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sap_adrena_get_custody_info' by focusing on pool-level data rather than individual custody or position info.

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 says 'Use this before opening positions to check pool health and available custodies,' giving clear context on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list implies differentiation. A score of 4 reflects clear context without exhaustive when-not guidance.

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