koios_pool_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately indicates a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose output format, response structure, or any notable side effects. There is no content to contradict.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with a parenthetical clarifier. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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 should hint at return values or response content. It doesn't, though the tool is relatively simple. The 4-parameter schema is well-covered, but the description leaves the actual response format guessable, making it adequate but not complete.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the tool's context, which is acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a resource, 'pool groups', then clarifies the definition in parentheses ('pools sharing the same owner/reward accounts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pool_info (individual pool details) and pool_list (all pools).

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 sufficient context: use this tool when you want pool groups sharing owner/reward accounts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of fully explicit guidance.

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