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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns current config details (resources, duration, reserves), but does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any side effects, permissions, or edge cases. The 'Get' verb implies non-destructive behavior, but more transparency would be needed for 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and effectively summarize the returned data. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple, parameterless getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It does not over-explain or omit critical information, though it could mention whether the config applies to all pools or a selected one.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter documentation needed, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'auto-selling configuration' with scope 'for your pools.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'configure_auto_selling' (which presumably sets the config) and other 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?

The description implies usage as a getter for auto-selling config but does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives like configure_auto_selling. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving guidance implicit.

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