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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context – the aggregation vocabulary, the default grouping and the 'largest pool in each group' inclusion rule – but says nothing about truncation, cost, or how the topGroups cap interacts with the totals.

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 that leads with what the agent gets back, followed by the grouping default and the unit caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly list-heavy rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists and the schema fully documents all three parameters, so the description need not explain returns or syntax. With the aggregation contents, grouping behavior and unit convention stated, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's only additional semantic is restating the fraction-not-percentage convention, which the schema already states on every APY field; grouping defaults likewise duplicate the schema.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns: pool count, total TVL, median/middle-half/TVL-weighted APY, largest pool per group. That output profile implicitly separates it from a pool-listing tool, but no sibling (search_pools, compare_pools) is ever named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 never states when to reach for this instead of search_pools or compare_pools, nor any exclusion conditions. The only usage-adjacent content is the unit convention ('rates in filters are fractions') and the default grouping, which are operational notes rather than routing guidance.

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