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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (consistent, since the tool only builds a plan and never broadcasts), the description discloses the approval step, the post-approval allowance cleanup, and the two-phase address resolution. It also explains how to interpret a liquidity shortfall as gauge-staked tokens.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and follows with phasing rationale and the shortfall tip, so every sentence earns its place. The sentences are dense and slightly run-on, but nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema, full schema coverage, and a readOnly annotation, the description fills the remaining gaps: coordinate phasing, approval/cleanup behavior, and the common staked-liquidity failure mode. Nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented; the description nonetheless adds meaning about the lp_token two-phase flow and frames liquidity against the actual LP balance, helping the agent reason about the value rather than just the format.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: 'Prepare a v2 removeLiquidity that burns LP tokens back into the underlying pair,' and it adds the LP-token approval and allowance cleanup the plan includes. This distinguishes it from the deposit and gauge siblings, which do not burn LP tokens into the pair.

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 gives explicit phasing: call without lp_token to get the pool read, then again with the resolved address for the full plan. It also provides a diagnostic that a short LP balance usually means the rest is staked in the gauge and needs unstaking first, pointing the agent to the gauge-unstake path.

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