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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: the data source (CCTools' public API), the Canton-only scope, and why Cantex is not included. It doesn't disclose error/availability behavior, but that's not required for this simple read-only tool.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying weight: the first states the purpose and data fields, the second gives routing to the sibling and explains an exclusion, the third identifies the data source. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotations.

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 single-optional-parameter, read-only data tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what data is returned, which DEXes are covered, what is not covered, why, and where the data comes from.

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%, with the single optional protocol parameter fully documented including enum values and 'Omit for all three.' The description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline of 3 applies.

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: get per-pool DeFi liquidity data, listing the source protocols and data fields. The first sentence clearly differentiates this from the aggregate-level sibling tool, so an agent knows exactly what this tool provides.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool (get_token_market) for aggregate protocol-level TVL, and explains the Cantex exclusion with a real-world reason (API down and stale numbers). This gives clear selection guidance without ambiguity.

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