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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the enumeration/filter scope and no return format, pagination, or volume characteristics, so it contributes little beyond 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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the optional filters trailing. Nothing is padding.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs. It stops just short of routing guidance against sibling retrieval tools like get_pool.

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% and the enum values for status are fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates that status and capability type can be filtered, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List all investment pools') and names the two optional filter dimensions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_pool, list_capability_types, or claim_pool/stake_in_pool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage ('optionally filter by status or capability type') but gives no when-to-use guidance versus get_pool (single pool retrieval) or other pool-related siblings such as claim_pool and stake_in_pool. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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