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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call is paid ($0.005 USDC on Base or Solana), that no account or API key is required, that failed calls are not charged, and that the data source is DefiLlama. It does not describe rate limits, latency, or the shape of an error/success response.

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?

It is short, front-loaded with the paid marker, then purpose, then price, then endpoint, with no filler sentences. The telegraphed fragments are slightly choppy but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 three-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers cost, payment rails, auth, billing failure policy, and the main response fields. Only the exact response envelope and paging behavior are left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so sort, limit, and min_tvl_usd are already documented with defaults and ranges in the schema. The description only indirectly hints at sort semantics by listing APY and TVL as returned fields, which is the expected baseline-3 level when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific resource (lido protocol pools across chains) and the exact payload (APY, TVL, 7d APY change from DefiLlama), which clearly separates it from the chain- and token-scoped yield siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but an agent can still route to it from the name plus description.

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?

"Live DeFi yields for lido" implies the use case, and the pricing/auth notes tell the agent what it must have to call it. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer buy_yields_chain_* or buy_yields_token_* instead, and no guidance on choosing between sort modes.

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