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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a tool that only computes and assembles calldata, so the safety bar is lower. The description usefully discloses that the response bundles token approvals, native value, and calldata — beyond what the annotations state. It stops short of saying whether anything is submitted on-chain, how approvals are encoded, or anything about rate/price validity, which would have earned a higher score.

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?

One sentence with the main output artifacts front-loaded and no filler. The trailing clause 'used by the interface' is slightly vague and adds little, but the rest is dense and purposeful.

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 7 required parameters including a nested PoolKey, plus annotations and an output schema, the definition is minimally adequate — the return shape is covered by the output schema. What is missing is the operational context: what 'manual' distinguishes, whether the caller must be the pool owner or hold a position, and how the time window and amounts constrain 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter carries a description, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints (e.g., how amount0/amount1 relate to the computed boost rates, or how start_time/end_time bound the boost), which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 pair ('Compute ... and prepare') and names concrete artifacts: Q32 boost rates, token approvals, native value, and boost calldata. An agent can tell this produces an unsigned boost transaction bundle rather than executing one. It does not, however, name a sibling it is distinct from, so a reader must infer the boundary against the other prepare_* tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent whether this is the right tool for a manual boost versus other Uniswap V4 prepare_* flows, nor what prerequisites (existing allowance, pool existence, valid time window) make the call meaningful.

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