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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by listing the exact metrics returned and the intended use, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key metrics, followed by a concise usage tip. Every word carries meaning, no filler, and it is well-structured for quick agent parsing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero params, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete: it enumerates the return values (the stats) and provides the usage context. An agent has sufficient information to select and invoke 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The input schema is empty, and schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param info.

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 clearly states what it does: 'Get live RiftBeam Solana aggregator stats' and lists specific metrics (win rate, pools indexed, mints, coverage %, lag slots, sampler performance). This distinguishes it from sibling swap/quote tools as a stats/info resource rather than a transaction tool.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use to assess routing quality before swapping.' This clearly indicates when to use it in the context of swapping, but it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to understand its role.

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