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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Compare DeFi yields' without explaining what the output looks like, how min_tvl_usd affects results, or whether any side effects or prerequisites exist.

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 directly conveys the purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it omits supporting details that would be useful.

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 the sparse schema, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not cover usage context, parameter semantics, or expected output, and it does not help an agent differentiate this tool from its siblings.

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 describes min_tvl_usd only by name and type, with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter, so the agent receives no context about its meaning beyond its somewhat self-explanatory name.

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 'Compare DeFi yields across TON protocols' uses a specific verb (compare) and resource (DeFi yields across TON protocols), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ton_dex_volume or ton_protocol_health, which focus on different metrics.

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 such as ton_protocol_health or ton_protocol_list. The description only states the core action and offers no context for selection or exclusions.

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