koios_pool_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and behavior. It only states it gets information, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose prerequisites such as valid bech32 pool IDs, pagination behavior, or what fields are returned. This is minimal coverage for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentence, making it concise and easily scanned. However, it is also under-specified for a tool with multiple pagination and filtering parameters, so it is not maximally informative despite its brevity.

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?

This is a data-retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not explain return structure, pagination defaults, or how 'detailed information' relates to the select/order parameters. It is barely adequate for an agent to invoke reliably.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds only the idea that the tool targets 'specific' pools, which aligns with the required _pool_bech32_ids parameter, but provides no additional meaning beyond the 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?

The description uses 'Get detailed information about specific stake pools,' which clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (stake pools), and scope (specific, by ID). It distinguishes from pool_list by emphasizing 'specific' rather than listing all pools, though it does not explicitly name 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling pool tools such as pool_list, pool_history, or pool_info variants. No context is given beyond the basic action, so an agent has no basis for selecting it among alternatives.

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