koios_pool_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, does not describe pagination behavior or the response structure, and offers no insight into what data fields are returned per pool. The description simply restates the operation without adding transparency.

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, clear sentence that earns its place without unnecessary detail. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be marginally improved by adding a brief note about pagination or the nature of the response while remaining concise.

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 tool is simple (no required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), but the description lacks any indication of what the response looks like or how pagination works. Given the large sibling set, the description does not adequately position the tool's role, making it incomplete for an agent trying to understand the result shape or usage context.

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 covers all four parameters (limit, order, offset, select) with descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not conflict or add value.

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 'Get a list of all registered stake pools' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all registered stake pools'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like koios_pool_info (specific pool) and other pool-related tools by focusing on the list-level operation.

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 use this tool over alternatives. With dozens of related pool tools in the sibling list, it fails to mention that this tool is the entry point for browsing all pools or when to prefer it over more targeted queries, leaving the agent without decision-making assistance.

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