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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them by disclosing the ordering ('newest first') and the exact shape of each result row (pairs, fee, creation transaction). It omits pagination/truncation behavior and what an empty result means, which keeps it from 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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by ordering and return fields. It is a fragment without an explicit verb, but nothing in it is wasted and it reads in a single pass.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and the fields returned, which is close to everything an agent needs. The remaining gap is whether the address is a hook address specifically and how results are truncated by limit.

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 (address, limit with default 20 and max 100) are already documented in the schema. The description only implies that the address identifies a hook rather than a pool or token, and does not clarify that 'newest first' interacts with limit to produce a truncated list – so it adds marginal meaning over 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 names a specific resource (pools on Elysium filtered by hook) and the fields returned (pairs, fee, creation transaction), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_pool_state or list_chain_hooks that operate at a different granularity. It stops short of naming an alternative outright, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 use case is implied by the phrase 'the pools ... that use a given hook' – an agent can infer this is the enumeration call for a hook's pools. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no pointer to a sibling for a different lookup (e.g., a single pool's state), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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