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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds rich behavioral detail beyond that: it measures live data over a 1-hour window, calculates fees per $1,000 of capital across two denominators, reconstructs active liquidity from the tick book, and notes that tiers with real money but no trading are also identified. It also explicitly says 'Measured, never annualised', preventing misinterpretation. This far exceeds what annotations provide.

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 long and dense, but every sentence earns its place by explaining the two denominators and the tick-book methodology. It is front-loaded with the purpose and ends with a caveat about measurement window. It could be tightened, but the structure is logical and the length is justified by the conceptual complexity of the 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's conceptual complexity, the description covers the key return information: both rankings, the underperforming tiers, and the measurement window. It doesn't enumerate exact output fields, but since there is no output schema, it conveys enough for an agent to know what will come back. Slightly more explicit field-level expectations would elevate it to 5.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter (address) with 'A BSC token address, or a PancakeSwap pool address to pin the pair'. The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter detail. Per the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 opens with a specific purpose ('For a liquidity provider deciding WHERE to put liquidity on PancakeSwap') and immediately states the resource ('PancakeSwap fee tiers'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like pancakeswap_best_route and pancakeswap_range_plan by focusing on measuring existing fee tiers and their real yield, not routing or range planning. The verb 'measures' is specific and the scope is explicit.

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 provides clear context: use when a liquidity provider is deciding where to put liquidity. It explains what the tool does and the reasoning behind its methodology. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like pancakeswap_range_plan likely overlap, but no exclusions or comparisons are given, 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.