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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and mentions data source and pool count, but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Purpose and key capability (filtering) are front-loaded. Highly efficient.

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 read tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks detail on response format or behavior when filters yield no results. Given sibling tools exist, the description could better position this tool relative to them.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists filter dimensions (chain, project, token symbol, APY) that align with schema, but adds minimal new information beyond the parameter descriptions. It provides context (19000+ pools) but no deeper semantics.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'DeFi yield and APY pool data from DefiLlama'. It highlights filtering across 19,000+ pools, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on chain TVL or protocol listings.

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 description implies usage when pool data is needed but does not explicitly state when to avoid or when alternatives are more appropriate. No contrast with sibling tools or exclusion criteria are provided.

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