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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. Description adds a specific failure mode (404 for no pool) beyond annotations. However, it does not cover rate limits, auth requirements, or response caching.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and structured with labels. However, the 'When to use' sentence largely restates the first sentence, adding mild redundancy. Example is useful but overall slightly longer than necessary.

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 output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), annotations cover safety, and schema covers params, the description completes the picture with usage, alternatives, and failure mode. Nothing critical is missing for a simple read tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's example merely restates the schema's format without adding semantic meaning (e.g., order independence). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (AMM pool reserves and trading fee) and scope (asset pair). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling estimate_slippage by noting it does not estimate slippage or compare venues. An agent can identify its role 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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'Prefer another tool' guidance, naming the alternative (slippage page) and the condition (slippage/venue comparison). Also notes 404 for a pair without a pool, covering failure mode.

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