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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides meaningful selection behavior: a symbol resolves to LoomDesk's own pool if available, otherwise the deepest pool, and a pool id can be passed directly. It does not mention failure modes or return format, but for a read-style getter the key behavioral nuances are disclosed.

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 entire description is one dense sentence that packs the core purpose, the differentiator from list_pools, and the accepted identifier forms. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or repeated schema details.

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 single-argument getter with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the target, the accepted inputs, and the added value over list_pools. Minor gaps remain, such as what 'deepest' precisely means and the schema's additional 'address' form, but these do not prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema already covers the parameter well with 100% coverage, describing it as a stock symbol or pool id/address. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the symbol resolution rule (own pool vs. deepest) and the v4 pool key enrichment. This extra context lifts it above the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the action: retrieve the full record for a single pool, including the v4 pool key, and distinguishes it from list_pools by focusing on one pool. The target is specified via symbol or pool id, making the resource unambiguous. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', but 'Everything list_pools knows about one pool' conveys the intended operation strongly.

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 this is the single-pool counterpart to list_pools and explains how a symbol is resolved. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_pools or the other sibling tools, and it offers no when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is present but mostly inferred rather than prescribed.

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