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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the $0.025 per-call cost, accepted tokens, and the two-step payment process. It doesn't describe the response format or potential side effects, but for a data-listing tool this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by cost and payment instructions. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, cost, and payment flow, which are the critical aspects for correct usage. It doesn't specify the exact output structure, but since there's no output schema and it's a simple data listing, the information provided is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'payment' parameter, and the schema already explains its format and purpose. The description adds context about the sequential usage (first call without, second with), which enriches the parameter semantics.

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 the tool provides a list of dead Arc pools with state and lifetime volume, enabling users to know where selling is impossible. It is distinguishable from siblings like arc_pools by name and content, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives.

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?

It explains when to use the tool (to know dead pools) and provides a clear payment flow: first call without payment for terms, then sign and call with payment. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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