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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world and non-idempotent. The description adds real value beyond them: the per-call cost model ($0.01/call, first 25 free, failed calls free) and the explicit warning that repeats are not free, which explains the idempotentHint=false. It also confirms 'reads or computes only and changes nothing'.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and return contents, then usage, then cost. Dense but every clause carries information; the pricing sentence is slightly long but justified by the non-idempotent behavior it explains.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so fully: fields returned, ordering (deepest first), supported chains, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 the schema already documents chain, tokenA and tokenB. The description reinforces the chain list and supplies a worked example (WETH/USDC), but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Uniswap pool liquidity for a token pair') and enumerates exactly what is returned: every v3 pool by fee tier, in-range liquidity, both token balances, price and current tick, ordered deepest first. An agent knows precisely what this tool produces 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?

Gives explicit use cases ('check a pool's depth before a swap or to price a token from its pool') and a concrete example (tokenA=WETH, tokenB=USDC). It does not name a when-not condition or an alternative sibling, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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