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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by noting rewards are paid off chain and excluded from the figures, preventing a misread of the numbers. It says nothing about data freshness, pagination beyond `limit`, or coverage 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?

The mode split is front-loaded in the second clause and the output enumeration follows in a tight sequence. Dense but every clause carries information; only the opening fragment lacks a verb.

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 takes on the return-value burden and discharges it for both modes, including the off-chain rewards caveat. Minor omission: no indication of what happens when `token` matches nothing or returns multiple campaigns.

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 coverage is 100%, so the 3 baseline is already met; the description goes further by spelling out what each branch of `token` returns (program-level TVL/change vs staker distribution/flows), which the schema's one-line hints do not convey. It does not clarify how a ticker fragment resolves against multiple matches.

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?

Specific verb+resource with an enumerated scope (Iagon, Indigo, Minswap LP farms) that separates it from generic siblings like get_stake_pool or get_earn_rates. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the project list rather than from an explicit contrast.

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 'Without `token` … With `token` …' structure tells the agent exactly which mode to pick for a program overview vs a per-token deep dive. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over compare_yields or get_stake_pool, so the guidance is clear but not complete.

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