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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses important behavioral traits: the ambiguity of zero TVL/liquidity values, the absence of pool-level paused/capacity flags, and how deposit/withdrawal restrictions manifest only at submission time. It also discloses rate limiting. These are meaningful additions beyond what annotations already provide, with no contradiction.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: purpose and output fields first, exclusions second, data caveats and operational limitations next, rate limit last. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically. Despite length, there is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully covers return values, filtering expectations, data ambiguity, unavailable flags, and rate limits. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly, interpret results accurately, and avoid misusing it for wallet-level queries. The combination of annotations and description leaves no material gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The schema coverage is 100% by virtue of having no properties. The description instead clarifies semantics of returned fields (blacklisted, poolTvl/poolLiquidity) which is useful, meeting the expected baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 verb and resource ('List all pools MetaLend's rebalancer can deposit into') and enumerates the returned fields (protocol, chain, APY breakdown, TVL, liquidity, signData). It explicitly differentiates from get_balances/get_config by stating what it does NOT return, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 provides explicit exclusions and alternatives: use get_balances/get_config for wallet balances/configuration, and notes that pause/withdrawal-blocking states appear only as errors from submit_deposit/submit_withdrawal. It also gives practical usage guidance on filtering blacklisted pools and rate-limit constraints. This is clear, context-rich guidance with no ambiguity.

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