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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the important behavioral caveat that returned state is indexed (i.e., potentially stale) and prescribes a concrete follow-up path for fresh values. No auth, rate-limit, or failure-mode context is given, keeping it below a 5.

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, both earning their place: the first states inputs and outputs, the second delivers the actionable caveat. The follow-up call guidance is front-loaded enough to be read before invoking.

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 values need not be described, and the description covers the one thing the schema cannot: that the state is indexed and how to refresh it. What remains missing is how this differs from adjacent pool tools (list_pool_keys, get_pool_liquidity).

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 pool_id, chain_id and core_address all documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the field names in prose and adds no format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Resolve") on a specific resource (chain/core/pool ID) and names the concrete outputs: verified PoolKey, decoded config, indexed pool state. This implicitly separates it from list_pool_keys and derive_pool_id, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a clear conditional: use this for indexed state, and route to wallet_batch_eth_call with current_state_query.read_calls_reference when fresh sqrtRatio/tick/liquidity are required. It does not address alternatives like get_pool_liquidity or list_pool_keys, so the when-not guidance is partial rather than exhaustive.

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