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

Annotations already flag mutating, non-idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds that the mutations are AERO locking, epoch voting, and bribe claims, but gives no further lifecycle details such as wallet/signer requirements or gas costs. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One tight sentence with the main purpose front-loaded. The parenthetical '($0.01 USDC)' is confusing filler, but overall the description is compact and scannable.

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 five distinct actions, an output schema, and mutation annotations, the description covers the main behaviors but leaves action-to-parameter relationships and operational prerequisites unspecified. It is adequate for selection, not fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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 recaps the action categories but does not clarify the ambiguous 'amount' parameter, such as which actions require it or how it should be formatted; the enum descriptions are also generic.

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 names a specific verb ('Automates'), a concrete resource ($AERO/Aerodrome), and distinct activities (locking, epoch gauge voting, bribe harvesting). This clearly separates the tool from siblings like aerodrome_swap and aerodrome_clamm.

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 action list implies when to use the tool (lock AERO, vote, claim bribes), but it never states explicit when-to-use conditions or names alternatives to exclude. Guidance is inferred rather than prescribed.

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