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

Annotations already establish read-only/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful external context: free public API, no key required, $0.02 USDC per call, and DeFiLlama as the upstream source. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: main output first, then filters, then default universe and cost. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Comprehensive for a low-complexity read-only tool: output fields, filter semantics, default behavior, auth requirements, and cost are all covered. No output schema is provided, but the description supplies enough about return content.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces protocol/asset substring behavior and optionality but adds little beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as a DeFi lending/stable yield benchmark from DeFiLlama Yields, listing concrete outputs like APY bands, TVL, chain, and pool ID. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling get_stablecoin_yield_benchmark.

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?

Provides useful context on optional filters and the default stablecoin-marked pool universe. Lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over overlapping siblings such as get_stablecoin_yield_benchmark.

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