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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned (current TVL, inflows/outflows, chain breakdown) which is useful, but does not mention data freshness, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. It gives a basic behavioral outline without deeper context.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose, and every word adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what the tool returns. It lacks specifics like example values or formatting, but is sufficiently complete for basic understanding given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the single parameter 'protocol' is already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter, but the schema suffices. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides TVL flow analysis with specific data points (current TVL, 7-day inflow/outflow, chain breakdown). It is specific about the resource (protocol TVL) and the focus on capital movement, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like chain_flows, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from protocol_flows.

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 implies usage for tracking capital movement ('Track where capital is moving') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like protocol_flows or chain_flows. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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