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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Facts and flags only, never advice', which clarifies non-advisory behavior. It also discloses access limits (free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; paid tier costs $0.005 per call), which is useful operational context. It does not detail return format or data freshness, but the disclosed behaviors go beyond basic expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a key behavioral note and access/pricing information. It is concise, though the pricing sentence is somewhat dense and could be separated. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is logical, earning a 4 rather than 5 due to the slightly cluttered pricing detail.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand what the tool does, how to access it, and its behavioral boundaries. It does not define every metric (e.g., 'exit depth'), but the overall purpose and usage context are clear. It is complete enough without needing an output schema.

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 covers the single parameter 'pool' with a clear description (DefiLlama pool id uuid, sourced from a specific URL), giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as providing yield pool safety analysis, listing specific aspects (peg, yield sustainability, emission dependence, exit depth). While there is no explicit verb like 'analyze' or 'evaluate', the noun phrase 'Yield pool safety' concisely conveys the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that likely cover chain info, exit cost, known issues, and launch, so the purpose is distinct and clear.

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 when to use the tool: when you need safety facts and flags for a yield pool. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this instead of X when...', so the guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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