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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds the pagination mechanism and the shape of returned data (balances, units, status). It does not disclose rate limits, default sort order, or whether inactive pools are excluded from other endpoints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and no filler. The second sentence is slightly redundant given the schema already documents both parameters.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and returned fields adequately. Only the absence of alternative-selection guidance holds it below a 5.

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%, with defaults and max documented in the schema itself; the description merely restates that limit and offset exist. Baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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 (returns) plus resource (all active liquidity pools on THORChain) and enumerates returned content (balances, units, status). The 'all active' scope distinguishes it from the singular get_pool and from list_derived_pools.

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?

No indication of when to use this instead of get_pool, get_known_pools, or list_derived_pools, and no prerequisites or filtering conditions stated. Only pagination mechanics are mentioned.

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