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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides meaningful traits: mirrors /pools.json, uses the same source snapshot (amm_ranked_pools), includes a third-party-naming caveat with dispute_contact_url, and is wrapped in the proof envelope. This goes beyond a simple 'returns a list' statement.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core purpose before the alternative, source, payload detail, and envelope. Each piece earns its place, though the fragmented 'Third-party-naming —' section is slightly awkward.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation context: ranking, scope, source snapshot, and response envelope. It could detail more return fields or limit constraints, but what an agent needs to select and call it correctly is largely present.

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?

The only parameter, limit, has no property description and 0% schema coverage. The description repeats the default value (50) and contrasts it with the sibling's default, which adds some context, but it does not explain limits on range, behavior for large values, or semantics beyond the default already present in 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return AMM pools ranked by TVL.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_amm_top_by_tvl by noting it is a 'broader list contract' with a larger default limit, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 names the relevant alternative (get_amm_top_by_tvl) and clarifies the selection-relevant difference: default limit 50 vs 10. This gives clear context for choosing the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list other exclusions.

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