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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the certainty levels of different outputs (address-encoded permissions are 'certain' vs. name/deployer attribution) and by stating it does not read source code, which prevents misuse for audits. It says nothing about behavior for non-hook or unverified 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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a parallel list of return fields, closed by a short scope caveat. Effectively two sentences with no filler; the enumeration is long but each item carries distinct meaning, so only minor tightening is possible.

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 exists, and the description does what is needed by naming the fields the agent will get back. Against a one-parameter, read-only, open-world tool that is nearly sufficient; it lacks only guidance on failure modes (invalid address, address that is not a hook).

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?

A single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('A full 0x address'), so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the 'by address' framing and adds no format, checksum, or chain-namespace nuance beyond 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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (Uniswap v4 hook on Elysium) and enumerates the fields returned: address-encoded permissions, code presence, pool count, verified name, and deployer (AskHook or Montra). The explicit 'Does not read source' clarifies the boundary of the lookup. It stops short of naming which sibling covers source-reading or the sub-queries (hook_flags, hook_pools) it composes.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent must supply a full 0x address to identify a hook, and 'Look up any' signals breadth of applicability. There is no explicit when-not condition and no named alternative for cases like per-flag lookups or pool-level queries, so the agent must infer routing from the return list.

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