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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the output is consolidated 'in one table' with assessment and data-age columns; it says nothing about behavior on invalid/missing ids, partial results, or freshness limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the returned fields enumerated compactly. The colon-list is dense, but no sentence is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the rich annotations cover safety. The one-parameter schema is fully documented, so an agent has what it needs; only failure-mode behavior (e.g., unknown ids, fewer than two valid pools) is left 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the 2-to-5 range and the 'pool:<id>' / 'vault:<id>' id format. The description's '2 to 5 pools by id' simply restates the schema, adding no new syntax or edge-case guidance.

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 gives a specific verb (compare) and resource (pools), plus an explicit cardinality bound (2 to 5) and the exact fields returned. This implicitly separates it from the single-pool get_pool and the query-oriented search_pools, but no sibling is named outright.

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?

Usage is implied by 'compare 2 to 5 pools by id' and the fact that results come back 'in one table', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated alternative (e.g., get_pool for a single pool, summarize_yields for aggregate views), and no exclusions.

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