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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Research only — non-custodial' with no contradiction. Crucially it adds the non-obvious inverted scale ('Higher score = lower protocol risk') and the provenance ('curated priors plus DefiLlama metadata when available'), both valuable beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by chaining guidance, scale semantics, provenance, safety note, and a concrete JSON example — all in a compact block. It's efficient with minor redundancy ('Also accepts protocolSlug' repeats what the example and schema already show), keeping it just short of a 5.

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 tool has non-obvious traits — an inverted score scale, a dual alias parameter, and a chaining dependency — and the description covers all of them. It lists expected output components since no output schema exists, and includes a runnable example. Complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor gaps like explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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 both parameters (protocol, protocolSlug) are already fully documented with descriptions, examples, and the alias relationship in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value by reiterating the alias ('Also accepts protocolSlug') and the chaining origin, but the schema does the heavy lifting. 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-resource pair: retrieves a 'Protocol-level risk card' listing concrete components (age, audit signals, curated known issues, category, score 0–100). It explicitly scopes to protocol-level rather than opportunity-level risk, distinguishing it from score_opportunity and compare_opportunities among the siblings. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

Provides clear workflow context: 'Chain: pass list_yields opportunities[].protocolSlug as protocol or protocolSlug', telling the agent exactly where this tool fits in a pipeline and what input to feed it. It also notes the 'Research only — non-custodial' nature. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it, so exclusions are left implicit.

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