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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful scope constraints: Uniswap V3 only and EVM-only chains, which the agent cannot infer from annotations. It stops short of saying what happens when no pool exists for the pair or how the default chain is applied.

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 short sentences with no padding: the operation and return fields come first, the platform constraint second, and routing guidance last. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, chain restriction, prerequisites, and sibling routing. It is slightly thin on edge behavior for unknown pairs or unsupported chains with no active pool, which is the remaining gap.

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 chain enum and both token address parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates what the schema supplies ('requires both token addresses', 'EVM only'), adding no format, ordering, or resolution details for symbols vs. addresses. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read Uniswap V3 pool state') plus the exact payload (current price, active liquidity, fee tier), and scopes it with 'EVM only'. It also explicitly contrasts itself with defi.aggregator/defi.compare, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 an explicit use condition ('Use when a known token pair needs pool-depth and active-liquidity context'), a prerequisite ('requires both token addresses'), and names the alternatives for what it is not ('does not rank lending yields; use defi.aggregator or defi.compare for rates').

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