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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: 20s rewrite cadence, data <=30s behind chain, hard refusal (503, unbilled) past 120s staleness, and $0.005 USDC per call via x402. Cost, freshness and failure behavior are all disclosed — exactly the context annotations would normally supply.

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 what is returned, then freshness/staleness, then cost — every sentence earns its place. The long first sentence enumerates output fields that the output schema already covers, which is slightly redundant but useful for a selection decision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required of the description, and the remaining agent-critical facts (freshness SLA, 503 behavior, per-call price, payment rail) are all present. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (hours, limit) are already fully documented with ranges and defaults; baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal value by grounding the 'hours' window as 1-24 in prose and never mentions 'limit'.

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 resource (ETH-quoted Uniswap v4/v3 pools opened on Robinhood Chain), a precise scope (last 1-24 hours, youngest first), and the exact payload fields returned. The age-window scope inherently separates it from siblings like rh_pool_flow and rh_bursts_history without needing to name them.

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: fresh-pool discovery within a 1-24h window, with burst tiers cross-referencing the rh_bursts_* family. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so an agent must infer the call context.

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