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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's added constraints ('EVM only', 'requires both token addresses') largely duplicate the schema's chain field description and required list, so it contributes little genuinely new behavioral context beyond the negative routing statement.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource and return values before routing guidance. The only inefficiency is the 'EVM only' clause, which repeats the chain field's own schema description.

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 an output schema present, return-value details need not be repeated, and the description still covers scope (EVM-only), inputs (token pair), and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to select or call this tool is missing.

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%: chain documents its full enum and default, and tokenA/tokenB are described. The description only restates that both token addresses are needed and that the chain must be EVM, so it adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (read Uniswap V3 pool state) plus the three returned values (price, active liquidity, fee tier), which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like defi.yields and defi.compare. An agent can tell what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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 explicit trigger ('when a known token pair needs pool-depth and active-liquidity context'), a prerequisite (both token addresses required), and a negative boundary with named alternatives ('does not rank lending yields; use defi.yields or defi.compare for rates'). This is the exact when/when-not/alternative structure the dimension asks for.

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