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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context like 'Live' and 'perma-locked' but does not disclose details such as data source, update frequency, or calculation methodology for price-impact estimates. This is acceptable given the safety annotations but adds only modest behavioral context beyond them.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the core purpose ('Live $BOBAI liquidity depth') followed by a compact list of deliverables. Every listed element adds value, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what data is available. Minor aspects like which DEX pool is queried or how 'live' is guaranteed are absent, but these are not critical for invoking 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 tool accepts no parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description still helps by listing what output areas the tool covers, which indirectly informs the agent what to expect despite having no input schema to elaborate on. No parameter documentation is needed here.

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 names a specific resource (BOBAI liquidity depth) and enumerates concrete data points it provides: pool reserves, USD liquidity, LP-burned percentage, and price-impact estimates. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bobai_price or bobai_burned by emphasizing depth and impact rather than simple price or burn totals.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this tool should be used when liquidity depth, pool reserves, or price-impact information is requested. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools, even though closely related siblings exist such as bobai_dex_info and bobai_burned.

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