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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: this is a paid endpoint costing 0.020 USDC payable on Base or Solana, and the model incorporates timelock and depeg stress factors. It stops short of explaining the payment flow or what happens if payment fails, which is the main residual gap.

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, purpose front-loaded before the cost disclosure, with no filler. The first sentence is dense with protocol jargon but every clause adds discriminative information about what the matrix covers.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not owed. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no enums, and no usage guidance, the description leaves the agent unable to populate risk_tolerance or understand how chains constrains the result — meaningful gaps for a paid call.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it — chains, capital_usdc (default 50000), and risk_tolerance (default CONSERVATIVE) are never mentioned. Critically, risk_tolerance has no enum and the description gives no hint of valid values, so an agent must guess whether it accepts 'CONSERVATIVE' vs 'conservative' vs 'LOW'.

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 and artifact — 'Computes an institutional risk-adjusted DeFi capital allocation matrix' — plus the venues (Base/Arbitrum, Morpho Blue, Aave V3, Moonwell, Aerodrome) and the scoring inputs (timelock, depeg stress). This is clearly an allocation-optimization tool rather than a yield lister like getSafeDefiYields, though the description never names that sibling to sharpen the 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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'institutional risk-adjusted ... allocation,' which signals the audience and scenario but never states when to pick this over getSafeDefiYields, getOndemandMarketSnapshot, or runFullEnterpriseRiskAudit. The payment sentence adds a prerequisite (paid call) but not a use/avoid condition.

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