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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added value is the result ordering ('highest fee APR first'), the scope limitation, and the hand-off to check_pool. It stops short of noting rate limits or index staleness, so not a 5.

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 use case, then filters, then returns, then exclusions and next step. Every sentence carries distinct information and the ordering is logical for an agent skimming for a decision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, yet the description still names the returned fields and sort order. Combined with the usage trigger, exclusions, and sibling hand-off, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, chains, min_fee_percent, min_volume_usd_1d) are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description only restates them loosely ('a limit up to 8', 'a minimum 1-day volume'), adding no format or semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('find pools') with explicit scope (across chains or DEXes) and output nature (recent volume and a fee rate). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_pool by naming it as a follow-up lookup rather than a substitute.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger and an example query ('high fee pools on Base with real volume'). It also states what the tool does not do (token contracts, current tick) and routes the agent to check_pool with a returned pool id.

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