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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses paid pricing ($0.005 USDC on Base or Solana), no account or API key requirement, no charge on failed calls, and the upstream data source (DefiLlama). It does not describe response shape or rate limits, but the payment and failure semantics are the operationally critical facts and they are all present.

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?

Cost is front-loaded with a single word ('Paid.'), followed by scope, data, price, access, failure policy, and URL — every sentence carries information. The telegraphic style is dense but never padded.

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 3-parameter, all-optional read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (pools, protocols, chains, APY, TVL), what it costs, and how access works. Only response format and pagination behavior are left unstated, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 sort, limit, and min_tvl_usd are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of APY and TVL implies the sort dimension but adds no syntax, units, or default semantics beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: yield pools holding KHYPE across protocols and chains, returning APY and TVL. The token scope (KHYPE) distinguishes it from the dozens of sibling buy_yields_token_* and buy_yields_chain_* tools without ambiguity.

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?

'Where to earn yield on KHYPE' establishes clear context for when to call it, and the paid/credential-free framing tells the agent it can be invoked directly. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as protocol- or chain-scoped yield tools, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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