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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden and discloses meaningful behaviors: it filters out pools with APY above 200%, requires real TVL, and ranks results by APY. This goes beyond a bare 'get yields' summary, though it does not address edge cases like empty results or rate limits.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds filtering criteria and a use case. Every word earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and only three optional params, the description adequately conveys what it does and what filters apply. It does not explain the return format, but the ranked yield list is implied. Sufficient for the complexity level.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (chain, limit, min_tvl), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'real TVL' which reinforces the min_tvl parameter's purpose, but does not significantly extend the schema's coverage.

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 ranks stablecoin yields by APY, with specific filters for real TVL and sustainability (<200% APY). This distinguishes it from siblings like rwa_yield or risk_adjusted by emphasizing stablecoin focus and safety.

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 phrase 'Perfect for treasury management' provides a clear use context, implying when to use this tool for safe stablecoin yield searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use case is well-defined.

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