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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: what is compared, ordering (biggest movers first), and inclusion of new/vanished deployments. It does not cover auth or pagination, but for a read-only tool this is a solid addition.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core comparison front-loaded and no wasted words. The second sentence about universe is a fragment and kind/limit are omitted, but the overall size is appropriate and efficient.

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 usefully explains the return shape (APY/TVL changes, movers, new/vanished deployments) and scope via universe. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers all parameters, so the main remaining gap is the unexplained kind parameter, which the schema itself documents.

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 schema already documents days, kind, limit, and universe. The description restates only the universe default and N-day comparison default, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries 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?

States a specific verb and resource: compares the latest market against an N-day snapshot, returning APY/TVL changes, top movers, and new/vanished deployments. This delta-oriented behavior clearly separates it from siblings like rwa_market_summary (current state) and rwa_history (historical series).

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 default values and implies usage (see what changed over N days), but never explicitly says when to choose this over rwa_market_summary, rwa_history, or the yield list tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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