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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (returns intent), requires a separate execution step, and outlines the one-time setup. It also explains the behavior: 'pulls only up to your on-chain aUSDC/mUSDC allowance, unwinds exactly what is needed, and delivers gaslessly'. It does not detail error conditions or rate limits, but is fairly transparent for a preview tool.

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 about 5 sentences, each adding value. It starts with the core purpose, then outlines the process, next steps, and setup. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though slightly lengthy. It earns its keep without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (no output schema, no annotations, 5 parameters with 0% coverage), the description explains the overall flow and use case but lacks parameter details and response format. It provides enough context for an agent to decide to use the tool, but incomplete parameter information may lead to incorrect invocation.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning of the parameters (agent, amount, toChain, srcChain, toAddress). It mentions 'agent' in context of Robyn and 'srcChain' and 'amount' in the process description, but lacks explicit semantics. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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's purpose: 'Spend from your yield (Aave v3 or Moonwell) with ONE EIP-712 signature'. It explains what it does (pulls from aUSDC/mUSDC allowance, unwinds, delivers gaslessly) and distinguishes it from siblings like robyn_yield_account and robyn_yield_quote by focusing on spending from yield.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it is a hosted, read-only endpoint that returns an intent to sign, and explains how to execute the spend by signing and posting to another endpoint or running a local command. It also mentions one-time setup. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it directly with sibling tools.

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