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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful context about what is surfaced: specific hook powers affecting traders and LPs, upgradeability, and first pool creator. The phrase 'A reading of powers, not a verdict' usefully clarifies that this is informational and not an assessment or recommendation.

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 compact and front-loads the resource and scope before listing the returned risk dimensions. Every sentence, including the final framing sentence, adds useful meaning without repetition.

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 read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the kinds of hook capabilities returned and the non-verdict nature of the output. It is nearly complete, though it does not explain ordering, default selection behavior, or the meaning of attention levels beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 the schema already documents the hours, limit, and attention parameters. The description does not add syntax, defaults, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable when schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly identifies the resource as new Uniswap v4 hooks on Elysium and explains the returned risk-relevant capabilities, such as changing amounts or refusing trades. It is more specific than a title restatement, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or frame the action as a scan/list operation.

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 this is for newly seen hooks, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of related hook-inspection tools. It also provides no exclusions or decision criteria beyond the 'new' framing.

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