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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that values are read live from the contract, which is useful, but it also spends a sentence on the 100,000 QU cost of adding/removing liquidity — behavior of a different operation, not this read 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?

Front-loaded with what is read, followed by the usage cue, then a short note. Mostly tight, but the flat-fee sentence is tangential to a read-only reserve lookup and does not earn its place here.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description states the data source and the fields returned, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. The missing piece is differentiation from qmax_pool_detail and other pool-related siblings.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents the asset symbol format and points to qmax_list_assets. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

The description names a specific resource (a single QSwap pool) and enumerates what is returned: reserves in QU and tokens, total liquidity units, and price, read from the contract. It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from near-siblings like qmax_pool_detail or qmax_list_pools.

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 offers one usage cue — check pool depth before discussing liquidity provision — but gives no explicit when-not conditions and does not name the sibling to use for the related tasks (qmax_pool_detail, qmax_get_liquidity_positions). The guidance is implied rather than routing.

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