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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the data source and fallback behavior (`aprSource`: Uniswap gateway vs. subgraph's last complete day). It also explains how unscored pools are handled and warns that absence from the ranking does not imply a bad pool.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the metric and ranking order, and each sentence contributes useful context. It is slightly dense but not padded, and the caveats about candidate pools and unscored pools earn their place.

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 still explains the return shape conceptually: ranked pools by Fee APR, best first, plus separately listed unscored pools with reasons. Given the readOnly annotations and fully covered parameters, it provides enough context to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the manager scopes the candidate pool set, but does not add format or syntactic detail beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource — ranking a manager's configured pools — and states the ranking metric: Fee APR over the last 24 hours, best first. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_position_history, list_operators, and suggest_move.

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 gives an important usage constraint: only pools fixed into the manager's set at creation are candidates for a move. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings such as suggest_move, nor does it name when-not-to-use conditions.

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