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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the DEX is read from the ledger, the component must actually run the pool, listing is checked only on mainnet because no DEX has a Stokenet API, and the result is "simulated". It also discloses value-flow details (excess returned to the account, position NFTs minted/burned, fees kept on claim_fees). Missing: whether the output requires a signing step or wallet connector, and any validation/failure behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the per-operation breakdown follows logically. It is dense and parenthesis-heavy (three nested parentheticals in one sentence), which costs some readability, but nearly every clause carries a decision-relevant fact rather than filler.

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 9-parameter, 3-operation builder with nested `range`/`amounts` objects and no output schema, the description covers what is produced ("the manifest and what the account would receive, simulated") and the per-DEX preconditions an agent must check. A small gap remains around signing/wallet prerequisites and what happens if validation fails.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still earns credit by adding cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: amounts differ per DEX (both tokens in reserve ratio, one side for DefiPlaza with the other only in shortage), range is in y per x and yields a position NFT, and ids default to every position held. It does not name `locale` or `network` behavior beyond the schema, but those are trivial.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Builds one transaction on a pool a DEX runs") and then enumerates the three operations (add, claim_fees, withdraw_positions) with what each does. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling build_pool_manifest by explaining that a DEX-run native pool refuses that tool's "contribute" and that this tool must be used instead.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule against the nearest alternative ("A DEX-run native pool refuses build_pool_manifest 'contribute' ... so use this") plus per-DEX conditions for when each add variant applies (Ociswap Basic/Flex vs DefiPlaza vs Precision). It also tells the agent what to do when the pool is unlisted on mainnet: warn the user plainly before signing.

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