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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that this tool builds or reads LP operation data rather than broadcasting on-chain. It also states that the caller's OpenAny gateway credentials are used and that charges and authorization are gateway-determined, though it does not detail return values or rate limits.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action, followed by compact sentences that explain the non-broadcasting workflow and gateway context. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 complex LP transaction-building tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and gateway billing context. It remains somewhat thin regarding what LP operation data is returned and how it should be used in the subsequent signing and broadcasting steps.

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 structured schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no specific meaning about individual fields such as independentToken, nftTokenId, or protocol, leaving the baseline score 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: increase an LP position. It does not explicitly differentiate this operation from sibling LP tools such as create, decrease, or claim fees, so it falls short of the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 implies the tool is a preparation step by noting that signing and on-chain broadcasting are separate, which is useful usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling LP operations like create, decrease, or check_approval.

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