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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful provenance—DefiLlama sourcing and WanBridge reachability—but does not explain return shape, pagination, or any other behavioral detail.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the key distinction front-loaded and no wasted wording.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description needs to carry more weight about return values and structure. It does not explain what a yield opportunity or earn position contains, nor does it mention the section parameter, leaving the agent under-informed for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the sole section parameter with its wanchain/crosschain/all enum is not mentioned. The description obliquely distinguishes native and cross-chain categories, but it does not explain the parameter, the default 'all', or how filtering works.

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 names a specific resource—earn yields—and clearly splits Wanchain-native positions from cross-chain DefiLlama-sourced opportunities. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_address_bridge_to_earn and list_bridge_to_earn_tasks, though it does not explicitly say it returns a list.

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?

It describes what data exists but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as get_address_bridge_to_earn or list_bridge_to_earn_tasks. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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