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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: ranked output with pool ids, APY values expressed as fractions, default sorting by TVL, a $100,000 TVL floor, latest-update freshness, cursor-based pagination, and the important caveat that stablecoin filters check labels rather than peg safety.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by output behavior, rate units, defaults, a caveat, and pagination guidance. The description is compact and every sentence adds relevant information without filler.

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?

Given the complexity of the nested query object and the presence of a full output schema, the description supplies the key context an agent needs: what the tool searches, what it returns, rate units, default filtering and sorting, freshness behavior, the stablecoin caveat, and cursor paging. Further parameter detail is already covered by the 100%-described schema, so no critical gap remains.

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 input schema already documents every parameter in detail. The description reinforces a few semantics, such as fractional APY values and key defaults, but it mostly repeats information already present in the schema. That makes 3 the appropriate baseline when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find DeFi yield pools' with explicit pool types and filters. It also says the tool returns a ranked table with pool ids, which clearly separates it from detail-oriented siblings like get_pool. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as compare_pools or summarize_yields, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 by listing supported filters and by noting that omitting filters searches the whole catalogue. It also says to page with the returned cursor. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_pools, summarize_yields, or get_pool, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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