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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds high-value context beyond that: a $0.002 cost, on-chain reads every 10 minutes, exclusion of reward tokens, and explicit sort order. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a paid read 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 core purpose and remains a single dense sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the number of dimensions it must cover, though the accumulation of clauses makes it slightly run-on.

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?

With no output schema, the description still names the key return fields (APY, utilization, USD size), data freshness, cost, scope, and exclusions. It is nearly complete for an agent to call correctly, though it could explicitly mention how the limit parameter affects returned results.

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 80%, so the schema already does most parameter documentation. The description lists chains and protocols that map to enum parameters and mentions assets like USDC/WETH, but adds little syntax or filtering detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific resource (DeFi lending yields) and enumerates exactly what is returned: supply and borrow APY, utilization, USD size, chains, protocols, and sorting. It is clearly distinguishable from all sibling tools, which cover stocks, macro, news, and token-specific verdicts.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tool as a routing option. Usage is only implied by the tool's data domain, leaving an agent to infer context from the name and description alone.

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