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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: 10-second refresh cadence, a cost of 1 unit, and the error surface ('none beyond a quota refusal'). It also flags historical semantics (payouts ended 24 September 2026) and the buyback rule that LOOM is never sold.

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?

Front-loaded with the core read statement and usage routing before the long return-field enumeration. The field list is dense but earns its place because there is no output schema; a few parentheticals are slightly verbose but none are wasteful.

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 the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating the top-level fields and the nested positions[] and buyback contents. Combined with the routing guidance, cost, and refresh rate, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description reinforces this by stating 'no parameters'. No syntax or format detail is needed or missing.

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 ('Reads the state of LoomDesk's protocol-owned liquidity book') and pins down the exact position (one LOOM/WETH position on LoomPairsHookV2) with its fee behavior. It explicitly excludes siblings my_ladders and market_tokens, so an agent can disambiguate without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('asked about the protocol itself, its treasury, its earnings or the LOOM buyback') and explicit when-not plus named alternatives for the two confusable siblings. Nothing is left to inference.

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