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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses non-custodial trust model and that funds remain in the agent's wallet, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. For a query tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, highly efficient, and packs all key information (protocols, allowances, APY, non-custodial) without wasting words. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns and its purpose. It could be slightly improved by noting the output format, but overall it is complete for an agent to understand utility.

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 100% with one parameter fully described as 'the agent wallet address (0x…)'. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides an agent's own Aave v3/Moonwell position (aUSDC/mUSDC) per chain, including the capped allowance and live APY. It distinguishes from siblings like robyn_yield_quote and robyn_yield_spend by focusing on the account position and non-custodial nature.

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 description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like robyn_yield_quote or robyn_yield_spend. Usage context is implied but lacks explicit guidance on when-not or prerequisites.

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