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

Read-only is already covered by annotations, but the description adds substantial context the agent could not otherwise know: the security analysis is findings-worst-first, it checks permissions rather than code, and pools with an AllowAll manager can be drained via protected_withdraw. It also discloses that the response expands when account is supplied.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good, but the middle collapses into two very long comma-chained sentences enumerating findings and reserve-token risks. The density makes it slow to parse; several clauses could be trimmed without losing selection-critical information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so exhaustively: profile fields, security findings, role permissions, and the optional per-account position. Combined with full schema coverage on inputs, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining the account parameter's effect on the result (position, share, redeem return, badge ownership) and by implying pool is a batchable list. It does not restate enum values, which the schema already handles.

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 ('Reads one or several native Radix pools') plus the three pool flavors, then enumerates the exact profile fields returned. This clearly separates it from find_pools (discovery), get_pool_positions (positions) and get_component_state (generic state).

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 sequencing rule: 'Use it before build_pool_manifest.' It also explains the conditional branch for the account parameter ('With an account, also its position...'), which shapes usage. It stops short of stating when to prefer get_pool_positions or get_component_info instead, so no exclusion guidance.

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