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

With annotations present, the description adds useful context: it returns one of two possible pool types and mentions paid read-premium routing and the hosted signer boundary. It does not fully clarify side-effect behavior relative to the readOnlyHint=false metadata or cover failure/rate-limit behavior, so the extra disclosure is only partial.

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 tool-specific first paragraph is tight and front-loaded, but the SAP execution guidance repeats the estimate-then-route instruction and adds boilerplate. It is organized but not as lean as it could be.

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 one required parameter, a fully documented schema, and an output schema present, the description supplies the remaining domain context needed to invoke the tool correctly. Edge-case/error behavior would improve it but is not essential at this complexity.

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 input schema already documents poolAddress at 100%, and the tool description adds the key semantic that the address is the original DBC pool to resolve. That is meaningful guidance beyond the generic schema text.

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 first sentence names a precise operation and resource: 'Resolve one launch from its original DBC pool to the currently executable Meteora venue,' and the second sentence tells what will be returned. The state-focused output distinguishes it from the related quote/build launchpad siblings even without naming them.

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 selection context: use it when you need the current executable venue/state for a launch that began as a DBC pool. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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