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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Return') and adds context about the payload (dispute_contact_url, proof envelope), but it does not explicitly state safety characteristics like whether it requires authentication or if it is a read-only call. This leaves some ambiguity, though it is not misleading.

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 two sentences, tightly worded, and front-loads the core purpose. Every piece of information (provenance, TVL, dispute_contact_url, proof envelope) adds value without redundancy. There is no filler.

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 that there is no output schema and no parameters, the description provides useful context about the response structure (dispute_contact_url, proof envelope). However, terms like 'provenance' and 'attributed' are not elaborated, so the agent may not fully understand the semantics. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it does indirectly describe the output fields, which adds some semantic value beyond the empty 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('every attributed RWA pool') with the key attributes (provenance + TVL). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_amm_pool or get_rwa_families by focusing on RWA pools and their data payload.

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 description implies usage (when you need all RWA pools with provenance, TVL, and the dispute contact URL) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It is clear enough that an agent can infer the context, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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