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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety needs no restating. The description instead spends its words on behavior the annotations can't cover: decimal-adjusted reserves, ADA units for TVL/volume, quote-per-base price convention, and a percent fee — meaningful given there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The returned-field inventory is front-loaded and the id-sourcing hint follows it, which matches the order an agent needs the information in.

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 return-value burden and does so completely: units, conventions, and every field the pool record exposes. For a one-required-param read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining where valid pool ids originate (get_token's `pools` array, or search), which is provenance the schema does not supply.

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 the exact resource ("One DEX liquidity pool") and enumerates the fields it returns, so the agent knows this is a single-pool detail fetch rather than a list. The "DEX liquidity pool" qualifier implicitly separates it from get_stake_pool and get_token_liquidity, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides a useful entry path — "Pool ids come from `get_token` (its `pools`) or `search`" — which tells the agent this is a follow-up call in a chain. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_token_liquidity or get_stake_pool, so the alternative-selection question is left to inference.

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