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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, it discloses real behavioural traits: operators can never withdraw (contract-enforced capability boundary), and that a `partial` answer on the scan path may include revoked operators while the index path never does. This staleness/completeness caveat is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot convey; only auth/pagination details are absent.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero padding: scope first, then the capability constraint, then the result-caveat. Each sentence carries information an agent cannot get elsewhere.

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 usefully hints at the return shape (a set of addresses, possibly flagged `partial`), which is more than most read tools offer. It stops short of naming pagination or the distinction between scan and index paths, but nothing essential to calling 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 description coverage is 100%, with both chainId and manager fully documented including format examples and a contract-address pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the indirect implication that `manager` is the manager whose positions are rebalanced; no extra syntax or edge cases are supplied.

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 the resource precisely — addresses authorised to rebalance a manager's positions — and states the scope ('currently authorised'), so an agent knows what the tool returns. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, and it never explicitly says 'list/retrieve', though the tool name plus sibling set (get_position_history, rank_pools, suggest_move) makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no preconditions (e.g. manager must exist / which chain), and no mention of alternatives among the siblings. The scan-vs-index note describes result behaviour, not when to select this tool over another.

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