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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the actual data sources searched (accounts' touched pools, Ociswap/DefiPlaza/Reddicks published pools mainnet-only largest-first, recent network activity) and a critical completeness caveat. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context the annotation cannot carry.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses two dense, well-ordered sentences. The source enumeration is lengthy but each clause contributes, so it earns its length; it could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description need not explain return fields, but it does not characterize the result shape at all. It fully covers sources, scope, and the incompleteness caveat, which is the important context for this tool, leaving only result format unaddressed.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that the query matches name OR address, and that 'accounts' expands the search to pools those accounts have touched. That ties the parameters to the source-selection behavior in a way the schema alone does not.

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 verb and resource: 'Finds native pools (pool_…) and Account Lockers (locker_…) by name or address'. It even disambiguates the two resource types by their address prefixes, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like lookup_entity and get_pool_state without opening the 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?

It names a concrete use case, 'resolve "the XRD/HUG pool" into an address before get_pool_state', which tells the agent both when to call it and which sibling to call next. It also warns that results are incomplete ('No API lists every pool or locker') and that a missing one can still be used by address. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, keeping it out of the top band.

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