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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that it uses DeFiLlama metrics, historical TVL drawdown charts, and token price stability, and that it returns one of four verdicts. This gives useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotation.

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 description is two sentences long, front-loads the action, and includes the key output contract. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no 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?

With one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers the input, the analytical approach, and the expected verdict format.

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?

The schema already fully documents pool_id, including an example UUID, so schema coverage is high. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assess') with a clear resource ('economic sustainability and liquidity risk of a DeFi yield pool') and states the output as a branchable verdict plus structured risk factors. It is distinct enough from siblings like assess_counterparty_risk and get_yield_rates.

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 makes the context clear: use this tool when a DeFi yield pool needs sustainability and liquidity-risk assessment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended scenario is evident.

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