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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds real behavioral context: the 0.192% LP fee take rate, the trailing-estimate caveat that past fees don't predict future fees, and that wash-traded volume is flagged in pool notes. That is meaningful domain context an agent could not get from the structured fields.

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 core scope ('Every QSwap liquidity pool') followed by the field list, then a single caveat sentence. Dense but every clause carries information; the only weakness is the tightly packed field enumeration.

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 must describe return contents, and it does so by naming each metric plus the fee-rate and wash-trading caveats. Adequate for a read-only listing tool; only the parameter-level behavior (sorting, limiting) is left unstated.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates: the three named metrics (TVL, trailing volume, fee APR) map onto the sort enum values, and 'over the window' hints at the window parameter. However, the sort and limit parameters are never explicitly explained, and the 7d/30d enum values go unmentioned.

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+resource (listing every QSwap liquidity pool) and enumerates the returned dimensions (TVL, trailing volume, fee APR, price change, impermanent loss), which distinguishes it from qmax_pool_detail. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is by implication rather than direct routing.

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 explains what comes back but says nothing about when to call this versus qmax_pool_detail, qmax_get_liquidity_pool, or qmax_list_assets. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions — usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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