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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it declares the tool is paid, names the exact price ($0.005 USDC) and accepted payment chains (Base or Solana), states no account or API key is required, and that failed calls are not charged. What is missing is rate limiting, error behavior, and any hint about the response shape or pagination, which matters for a list-style endpoint.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with 'Paid.' and the core purpose before pricing and access details. Each clause carries information, though the raw URL at the end is plumbing that adds little for tool selection and could be dropped.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, cost, payment rails, and auth requirements – everything needed to decide whether to call it. The remaining gap is that with no output schema, the description does not sketch what a row contains beyond APY and TVL.

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% – sort, limit, and min_tvl_usd each have inline descriptions with defaults and ranges, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The prose adds nothing about parameters, not even that min_tvl_usd defaults to 100000 to filter out dust pools. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete schema.

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 gives a specific resource and scope: live pools holding GROVE across protocols and chains, with APY and TVL sourced from DefiLlama. That is far more than a restated name and lets an agent know this is a token-scoped yield lookup. It never explicitly contrasts with the buy_yields_chain_* or buy_yields_protocol_* siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Where to earn yield on GROVE' – an agent can tell this answers yield questions for that specific token. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no pointer to the chain- or protocol-scoped yield siblings for other query shapes. The payment and access notes are context, not routing guidance.

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