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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of exposing behavior. It merely states a topic and provides no information about whether this is a read operation, what output to expect, or any side effects.

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 sentence with no filler, but its structure as a noun phrase rather than a functional statement limits its usefulness. It is concise, though the content could be more action-oriented.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to use it. It does neither, leaving the agent with only a vague topic label and a hint at protocol values. This is inadequate for a tool with one optional parameter.

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's single 'protocol' parameter has no description (0% coverage). The description lists Moonwell, Aave, Compound, and 'RWA protocols', which hints at possible parameter values, but it does not explicitly connect these to the protocol parameter or explain how the parameter controls behavior.

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 resource area ('Real-world assets and institutional lending on Base') and lists associated protocols, but it lacks an action verb or explicit statement of what the tool does. It vaguely distinguishes from siblings by topic, but not by function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like base_defi_yields or base_protocol_tvl. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or preferred contexts.

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