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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying depth units (1e8 base units), USD price inclusion, and the default behavior of returning the full list unless filters are 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?

Two focused sentences: the first states what the tool returns, the second provides filter guidance. Every phrase adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with zero required parameters and a fully descriptive schema, the description covers return contents, units, and filtering rationale. The annotations handle safety, and the schema handles parameter details, so nothing essential 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%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds only a general mapping of filters to status and chain/asset, and does not need to go deeper because the schema already provides precise semantics.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List THORChain liquidity pools', and states the key returned data (status, depths, USD asset price). This clearly differentiates it from the siblings get_network_status and get_swap_quote, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly advises when to use filters: 'Filter by pool status or by chain/asset to avoid pulling the full list.' It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the purpose and sibling names make the appropriate contexts clear.

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