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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ranking methodology ('ranked by spot APY, not a safety verdict'), provenance ('DefiLlama data, signed and timestamped'), and cost ('$0.02 USDC on Base per call'), all of which an agent needs before invoking. It does not cover auth/rate-limit behavior or result pagination, leaving minor gaps.

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 tight sentences: purpose and filters first, caveats and ranking second, provenance and price last. Every sentence carries information, though the pricing/provenance sentence could be considered secondary to invocation decisions.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return fields (APY, 30d mean, volatility, IL risk) and the ranking basis. Combined with full schema coverage on inputs, an agent has enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around result volume/pagination.

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 all seven parameters are already self-documenting. The description echoes the filter dimensions (chain, stablecoin exposure, project, min TVL) but adds no syntax, defaults, or format guidance beyond what the schema provides; the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Compare DeFi yield candidates') and immediately scopes the output fields returned (spot APY, 30d mean, volatility, IL risk). It also carves out adjacent territory by declaring it is 'not a safety verdict or executable deposit quote', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like token_security_check and any deposit-execution tool.

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 phrase 'before choosing a deposit' gives a clear situational trigger for use, and the 'not a safety verdict or executable deposit quote' clause states an explicit non-use case. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool to use instead, so it falls just below the top score.

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