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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations, it discloses deprecation status, a concrete rate limit (20/min, max one call per 3s), two data-quality caveats (ambiguous '0' TVL/liquidity, absence of paused/capacity flags), and where those states actually surface (submit_deposit/submit_withdrawal errors). This is unusually rich operational context that annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the [DEPRECATED] marker and the core purpose, then layered with exclusions, caveats, and limits — no sentence is filler. It is a dense paragraph rather than a structured list, which slightly hurts scannability for an agent parsing many caveats.

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 carries the full burden of describing return fields and does so explicitly, including the signData tuple needed downstream to build a config. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and interpret the result is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to document. The description instead spends its space on return-field semantics (signData composition, APY decomposition), which is appropriate but not a parameter concern.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and enumerates exactly what each pool record contains (protocol, chain, APY breakdown, TVL, liquidity, signData). It explicitly separates itself from get_balances and get_config by stating what it does NOT return, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative tools (get_balances / get_config) and the condition that selects them, and gives an actionable caller instruction ('filter out pools where blacklisted is true'). It also explains when an apparent zero value is not actionable information, which steers interpretation.

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