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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what data is returned (a read-only info operation) but does not mention whether the call can fail for invalid addresses, whether it hits an RPC or API, whether it is expensive/slow, or any rate limits. For a read-only getter, the lack of annotations is partially mitigated by the clear 'Get info' framing, but richer behavioral context would be better.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the data categories compactly. It is efficient and every phrase adds information. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the return fields), but it is appropriately sized for a getter tool.

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 tool has one required parameter, a 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what data will be returned, which is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. The only gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance versus siblings, but the output schema and simple parameter make this a minor issue.

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% and the single parameter 'address' is described as 'Pool account address (base58)'. The description adds the context that this is an AeX402 pool and that the returned info is detailed, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed AeX402 pool info') and enumerates the exact data categories returned: token mints, balances, fee, amplification, LP supply, analytics (OHLCV candles), and circuit breaker status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like aex402_listPools (list vs. get single pool) and aex402_quote/buildSwap (actions vs. 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 implies this is the tool to call when you need detailed pool information for a specific pool address, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus aex402_listPools or aex402_rh_pool. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, though the detailed field list makes the use case fairly clear.

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