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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and nondestructive behavior. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that the bits indicate which callbacks PoolManager will ever call and that it returns a known-template match, but it does not cover output format or edge cases.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core result. The repeated 'Free:' prefix is slightly redundant with the title but does not undermine clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries more burden to explain return values. It conceptually names the returned data, permission bits and template match, but does not describe encoding, response structure, or failure behavior.

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?

There is one required parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines it as a Uniswap v4 hook address. The description adds no formatting or semantic detail beyond that baseline.

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 specific resource and result: permission bits for a Uniswap v4 hook address and a known-template match. It clearly indicates what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling hook_inspect.

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 explains what the tool provides but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as hook_inspect. The implied use case is broad: retrieve hook permission bits and template matching for an address.

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