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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it delivers meaningful disclosures: APY is not a guarantee, it is a blended target across conservative weights, and Sepolia uses MockYieldAdapter. 'Simulate' plus 'before depositing' also implies this is a non-mutating analysis 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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and stays compact. There is minor repetition of 'blended target APY,' but every sentence adds either usage context, a trust caveat, or an environment caveat.

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?

For a two-parameter simulation tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage timing, caveats, and testnet behavior. It does not describe return value format, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add much parameter-level detail beyond the schema, though it reinforces that the calculation is based on blended target APY and conservative allocations.

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 and resource: 'Project expected returns for a USDC deposit over 30, 90, and 365 days.' It also distinguishes the tool from the deposit sibling by framing it as a pre-deposit reasoning step, so an agent can tell it apart from actual deposit or APY-lookup tools.

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?

'Use for agent reasoning before depositing' clearly states when the tool should be called. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the pre-deposit context is enough to avoid obvious misuse.

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