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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is 'live', returns LP-burned percentage as 'perma-locked', and covers buy sizes of 0.1–5 BNB. It doesn't discuss caching freshness or staleness of the 'live' data, but for a zero-param read tool this is solid.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first front-loads what is returned, the second immediately handles routing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so explicitly by listing the four data points returned. With annotations covering safety and no parameters to document, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The 0.1–5 BNB range mentioned describes output coverage, not an input, and is correctly framed as estimates it provides rather than something the caller supplies.

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 resource (live $BOBAI liquidity depth) and enumerates exactly what it returns: pool reserves, USD liquidity, LP-burned percentage, and price-impact estimates. It also names the sibling it is not (bobai_price for price alone, bsc_pool_scan for other BSC tokens), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the use case ('size a trade') and routes to alternatives with conditions: 'for the price alone use bobai_price, for any other BSC token bsc_pool_scan.' Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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