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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial context beyond them — it returns numbers never calldata, names the bridge pool when currencies don't overlap, requires manager v2.2 for cross-currency suggestions, and warns that propose_move re-derives each number against chain state through policy and oracle guards. It also discloses that full ranking and caveats accompany every answer.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the safety-relevant caveat comes last, which is a sensible ordering. Four dense sentences are all substantive, though the bridge-pool sentence is long and could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden (destination pool, ticks, liquidity amount, bridge name, full ranking, caveats) and it does so thoroughly, while also explaining the downstream handoff. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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 the schema already documents chainId, manager, salt, and minGainPct, including the default of 1. The description gestures at the gain threshold but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: it compares the position's current pool against the manager's set and returns move numbers (destination pool, ticks, liquidity). It clearly marks the boundary as a suggestion generator whose output feeds propose_move. It does not however differentiate itself from the sibling rank_pools, which also deals with pool ranking.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it (evaluating a move, with a minGainPct threshold implied by "when the gap is worth it") and explicitly routes downstream use to the envelop-mcp-lp propose_move tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions against siblings like rank_pools.

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