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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, open-world), yet the description adds material context they don't: per-call cost (0.020 USDC), subscription inclusion, and the specific metric set returned. It doesn't discuss rate limits, latency, or failure modes for an invalid pool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 dense sentence front-loads the supported venues and the output set, with pricing placed last where it belongs. The enumerated metric list is long but every item earns its place; 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does list the returned metrics, venues, and cost. Only return format/shape and error behavior remain unspecified, which is a minor gap for a read-only analytical call.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented with type, bounds, and default. The description ties width to the analytical outputs (time-in-range, rebalances) but adds no format or syntactic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

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?

Names the exact domain (Raydium CLMM, Orca Whirlpool, Meteora DLMM) and enumerates the specific outputs: liquidity by price, time-in-range over 7/30 days, fee yield, impermanent loss, and rebalance count. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like pool_health, market_snapshot, and token_deep_check.

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 title and description frame the use case ("which range to hold"), which implies a range-selection decision context, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. pool_health) is given. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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