getNetworkPoolsFilter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'keyless' (no auth requirement), that filters are AND-combined, documenting defaults (limit 50/max 100, sort_by/sort_dir defaults), and noting aliases. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences plus a filter enumeration. Front-loaded with purpose and the key sibling differentiator. While somewhat dense given 25 parameters, every clause earns its place: purpose, read-only/keyless, when-to-use with examples, filter list, required/default/alias info. No filler, but a bit heavy to parse.

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 25-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is thoroughly complete. It covers purpose, sibling differentiation, examples, read-only/keyless status, ALL available filters, required network param, pagination (cursor/limit), and sort defaults. The output schema handles return values, so the brief mention of 'results' with has_next_page/next_cursor is sufficient.

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% with rich per-parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine cross-parameter semantics not in the schema: the AND-combination of filters, which params are required, default values for limit/sort_by/sort_dir, and the alias relationships (sort_by/order_by, sort_dir/sort). This provides real value beyond the structured schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource: 'Get pools on one network filtered by numeric thresholds'. Explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling getNetworkPools by naming it and describing the differentiator (numeric constraints/time windows). The three concrete example queries reinforce the exact scope.

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 an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Choose this over getNetworkPools when the user gives numeric constraints or a time window.' Provides three concrete user-query examples ('pools over $1M liquidity on Base', 'pools created in the last 24h', 'high-volume low-liquidity pairs') that map to filters. Clearly implies the alternative for non-numeric queries.

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