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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It usefully explains the risk-adjusted APR formula and 30-day moving averages, but doesn't disclose response structure, pagination, or other behavioral traits. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded with the key data content and ending with the critical parameter caveat. No filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating the returned metrics and the adjusted APR calculation. It could describe the exact response shape, but for a simple two-parameter read tool, the invocation-relevant context is largely complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying that strategy_id must come from list_vaults and explicitly warning against using the pool id, which prevents a common mistake.

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 resource ('vault') and a specific action/result ('Daily time-series') with concrete metrics (TVL, APR, APY, risk-adjusted APR). It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like get_vault_stats, but the 'time-series' framing differentiates it well enough.

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 a clear and important usage instruction: use the strategy_id from list_vaults, not the pool id. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over get_vault_stats, but the 'Daily time-series' context makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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