koios_pool_updates

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only provides a high-level noun phrase. It does not mention pagination behavior, handling of the optional _pool_bech32 filter, or what data is returned in each certificate type. This is a significant gap for a tool with optional parameters.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, keeping the entire content easily scannable.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only a one-line summary. It fails to explain the distinction between registration, update, and retirement certificates, or how the optional pool filter behaves. This leaves the agent without enough context to select and invoke correctly in non-trivial cases.

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 provides full descriptions for all 5 parameters, including type constraints and meaning (e.g., 'Pool ID in bech32 format'). Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 'Get pool registration/update/retirement certificates' clearly specifies the action (get) and the resource (pool certificates). It distinguishes from sibling tools like koios_pool_registrations and koios_pool_retirements by covering all three certificate types in one endpoint.

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 implies usage for retrieving pool certificates across registration, update, and retirement, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to choose this over the more specific pool_registrations/pool_retirements endpoints. The scope is clear enough for a user to infer the appropriate context.

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