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 clear. The description adds valuable context about per-call cost ($0.10–$0.75) and that results are ranked by risk-adjusted return, which is behavioral information beyond the annotations.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded. The first sentence is a dense enumeration that could be more structured, but it avoids unnecessary words and efficiently conveys the tool's scope.

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?

The description covers purpose, modes, cost, and ordering behavior, which is sufficient for a read-only tool with a well-defined schema. It does not specify the exact result fields, but no output schema exists, and the description's mention of 'ranked by risk-adjusted return' gives a reasonable hint of result nature.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic meaning to the 'kind' enum values (e.g., 'discover' as 'broad vault discovery sweep'), enriching the bare enum labels in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('yield'), enumerating four distinct modes: DeFi lending/LP opportunities, Pendle fixed-yield/YT-PT trades, vault discovery, and liquidations. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_arbitrage and get_prediction_market_yields.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on cost and directs users to list_einstein_capabilities for free alternatives, effectively stating when not to use this tool. The four modes imply specific use cases, but it does not explicitly compare against all related yield tools.

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