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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description confirms it is a retrieval operation and adds no contradictory behavior, but it provides no additional context about return detail, formatting, or edge cases beyond what the annotations already establish.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core action and scoping condition front-loaded. There is no wasted text.

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 simple one-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but it does not differentiate from closely named siblings and does not describe what 'detailed information' includes despite there being no output schema. Some gaps remain for an agent deciding whether this is the right pool-detail tool.

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 single parameter is already well documented with examples. The description mentions 'asset identifier' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: returns detailed information for a specific liquidity pool, scoped by asset identifier. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_pool_stats or list_pools, 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 phrase 'by asset identifier' implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_pool_stats, get_derived_pool, or list_pools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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