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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this thoroughly: APY is a blended target, not a guarantee; Sepolia uses MockYieldAdapter; conservative and balanced have different allocation legs; aggressive is not live; gas costs are given. This goes well beyond the schema and gives an agent an accurate model of what will happen.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: return format, disclaimer, environment behavior, profile behavior, and gas estimates. It is somewhat long but not redundant; every detail earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a tool with this much nuance.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return format ('structured JSON with profile metadata, target allocation by adapter, and a disclaimer') and the exact APY display format. It covers caveats, environment differences, profile availability, and gas. An agent has all the information needed to call this tool correctly and interpret its result.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the profile parameter by explaining the allocation legs (Core only for conservative, 50% Core / 50% Middle for balanced) and noting aggressive is not live. It also clarifies the FORGE boost component related to agentAddress, adding value beyond the enum and field names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the blended target APY for a Forge profile: base USDC yield + FORGE boost.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (deposit, withdraw, claim_forge) as a read-only informational endpoint. It also states the output shape, removing ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 gives clear context on when this tool is relevant (querying APY for a Forge profile) and which environments are live (Sepolia vs mainnet). It implicitly tells the agent that aggressive is not live and that only conservative is MVP, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X.' This is clear context without formal exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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