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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses scope limits (v3-only, not a fill check, no v4 visibility), but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or what is actually returned beyond 'pool addresses'.

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?

Three tight sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded and alternatives last. 'Fill check' is slightly jargon-heavy but the overall structure is efficient with 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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior and return semantics, yet it leaves both parameters and output format undocumented. Scope and routing are handled well, but the definition is incomplete for a 2-param lookup tool.

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 0% and the description never mentions tokenA or tokenB. It only implies a token pair is needed; it does not clarify whether inputs are addresses or symbols, whether order matters, or how pairs map to pools. The description fails to compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 states a specific resource and scope ('Uniswap v3 pool addresses only') and explicitly distinguishes itself from v4 pools and from swap flow tools. An agent can tell it apart from stocktoken_quote and stocktoken_execute_plan, though the exact verb ('find') and return shape are only implied.

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 gives both a negative boundary ('not a fill check', 'does not see v4') and an explicit alternative path for the swap use case ('use stocktoken_quote then stocktoken_execute_plan'). It stops short of stating the positive trigger condition for calling this tool directly.

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