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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already signal a safe, non-networked operation; the description reinforces this by characterizing the work as local integer decoding rather than a state query. Beyond that reinforcement it adds little about failure modes, e.g. what happens with a malformed or out-of-range integer, and the returned fields are already carried by the 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 tight sentences with zero filler; the decoded outputs come first and the disambiguating 'not a state query' note closes. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter pure decode function with an output schema and clear read-only annotations, the description is essentially sufficient. A minor gap remains around input expectations (e.g. accepted magnitude, whether the value must come from a specific wallet-read surface), but nothing needed to invoke it 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% with a single required param ('info', decimal integer), so the baseline is 3. The description does add the provenance of that value — it is the packed PositionInfo returned by wallet reads — which helps an agent source it correctly, but adds no formatting or range guidance 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 and resource ('Decode the packed PositionInfo') and immediately enumerates the decoded outputs (signed tick bounds, subscriber flag, truncated pool-ID prefix), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. The closing clause distinguishes it from the many state-query siblings like get_position and get_positions_by_owner.

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 line 'This is local integer decoding, not a state query' implicitly tells the agent to reach for this after a wallet read rather than instead of one, and rules out on-chain lookup. However, it never names the adjacent decoding sibling (decode_pool_config) or states explicitly 'use this when you already have the raw positionInfo value'.

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