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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: score direction, data sources, display-name normalization, NOT_FOUND behavior with closest slugs, and the non-custodial research scope.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains information-dense. It has minor redundancy at the end, repeating that protocolSlug and display names are accepted, but no major wasted space.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it describes the returned risk card, score direction, input sourcing, alias resolution, and error behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 are already documented. The description still adds useful semantics: protocol and protocolSlug are aliases, display names resolve case- and space-insensitively, and examples such as 'Compound V3' clarify accepted input formats.

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 it returns a protocol-level risk card with specific contents and a score scale. It distinguishes protocol-level risk from opportunity-level scoring only implicitly via the word 'protocol-level' and does not explicitly name siblings such as score_opportunity or compare_opportunities.

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 gives a concrete chaining instruction: pass list_yields opportunities[].protocolSlug as protocol or protocolSlug. It also explains display-name resolution and unknown-name handling, but does not explicitly say when to use this versus score_opportunity or explain_score.

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