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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavior disclosure. It mentions outputs but fails to describe any behavioral traits such as data sourcing, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function and supported protocols without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, making it minimally complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 schema description covers the protocol parameter with examples, but the description adds a fuller list of supported values ('GMX, Aave, Pendle, Camelot, etc.'), providing meaning beyond the schema's minimal example.

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 performs a 'DeFi protocol health check' with specific outputs (TVL, audit status, risk score) and lists supported protocols, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like arb_defi_yields or arb_token_risk.

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 implied usage through the list of supported protocols but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. It gives context but no direct guidance.

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