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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by naming the return fields (depths, units, status, price), which matters because there is no output schema. It doesn't say what happens for an unknown asset or whether results are live vs cached, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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 compact sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second delivers the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returns, and alternatives adequately. The only omission is failure/edge behavior for invalid asset identifiers, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 `asset` parameter already carries the format example (BTC.BTC or ETH.ETH). The description repeats that example but adds no new semantics such as case sensitivity, accepted chains, or resolution rules, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Returns one liquidity pool by asset") and enumerates the payload (depths, units, status, price). It is immediately distinguishable from list_pools (enumeration) and get_pool_stats (aggregate metrics), both of which it names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use list_pools to obtain asset identifiers, and get_pool_stats for volume/fees/APY. This covers both the precondition (discovering the asset string) and the nearest alternative tool with the condition that selects it.

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