search_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a formatted table, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds some value beyond the schema but lacks rich behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clear Args/Returns section. Every sentence is necessary, and the purpose is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 the tool's 4 parameters, sibling tools, and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the search functionality, pagination (page parameter), and return format (columns listed). The output schema renders further detail unnecessary.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the tool description includes a docstring that explains each parameter (e.g., 'Search query (default: "weth")'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though not all parameters are extensively detailed.

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 searches for pools on a specific network and returns a formatted table. The verb 'search' and resource 'pools' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like get_new_pools or get_trending_pools by focusing on search with query parameters.

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 clear usage context by listing parameters with defaults, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_new_pools. However, the name and purpose imply it is for searching, which is a distinct use case among siblings.

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