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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest: it discloses that the emitted plan bundles approvals and allowance cleanup, that a quote bundle resolves the pool and computes the actual split, and that a missing pool is caught before pricing. That is meaningful behavior beyond the annotation and is consistent with a read-only planner that returns unsigned transactions, though the description never says explicitly that nothing is broadcast.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action comes first and the caveats follow. The second sentence is slightly compressed ('catches a pair with no pool before a deposit sets its price'), which costs a little readability but not correctness.

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 an 11-parameter preparation tool with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the important non-schema facts: approval handling, pre-flight pool validation, and the downstream staking requirement. Only the absence of an explicit 'returns a plan, does not execute' statement leaves a small gap.

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% and every parameter including deadline, min/max amounts and stable-vs-volatile is documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the split quote and pool resolution echoes rather than extends the schema's 'with the pair it identifies the pool' note.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource: it prepares a v2 addLiquidity call routed through Aerodrome's Router, and it states the scope of the artifact (exact approvals plus allowance cleanup). Against siblings such as prepare_aerodrome_liquidity_withdraw or prepare_uniswap_v2_add_liquidity, the chain/protocol is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

It routes the agent to a named follow-up (stake LP with prepare_aerodrome_gauge_deposit to earn AERO) and explains when the tool is safe to call (the read bundle resolves the pool first). It does not explicitly exclude or compare against adjacent tools like prepare_lp_position_deposit, but the operational context is clear.

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