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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default TVL floor and outlines the shape of the aggregate result, but that floor is the same value already exposed as the minTvlUsd default in the schema, so genuinely new behavioral context is thin.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return contents, and no filler. The semicolon-delimited list is dense but each clause maps to a distinct output element, so nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing results, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating the per-stablecoin, per-category, and comparison fields. Combined with the documented default filter, an agent has what it needs, though it lacks any note on freshness or ordering of the ranking.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description restates the $10M default but adds no format, units, or effect detail beyond what the schema property already documents.

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 the resource (stablecoin yield market) and enumerates the exact aggregates returned: venues, TVL, median APY, best venue, best collateralized-lending venue, category totals, and the treasury comparison. This is specific enough to distinguish an aggregate summary from a raw pool listing, but it never names the sibling list_stablecoin_yields that an agent might otherwise pick.

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?

No statement of when to use this summary versus list_stablecoin_yields or compare_yield_to_tokenized_treasuries, and no exclusions. The only selection hint is the implicit $10M default filter, which is a behavior rather than routing guidance.

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