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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: on-chain archival-node sourcing, annualisation, inclusion of total staked NEAR, instant-exit cost via NEAR Intents, per-call pricing, credit-header usage, free tier, and lack of wallet/API-key requirements. No contradiction exists.

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 dense but purposeful. It front-loads the core value proposition and measurement methodology, then gives parameter meaning, pricing, and access requirements. It could be broken into sentences, but every clause earns its place for a tool that involves both data and commercial terms.

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-only yield tool with 0 required parameters and an output schema, the description supplies all needed invocation context: measurement period, providers, exit mechanics, default behavior, pricing/credits, and authentication requirements. No material gap remains for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the schema documents both parameters; the description adds beyond it by explaining that days sets the measurement window with a default of 7 and that size is the exit size in USD. This clarifies the semantic role of size and provides default behavior not present in the 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 specifies a concrete resource—NEAR liquid staking yields (LiNEAR, Meta Pool stNEAR)—and the measurement method: on-chain redemption-price APY over a window, annualised. Its reference to measured vs advertised rates and exit costs distinguishes it clearly from the many near_* sibling tools.

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 this tool: when the agent needs actual measured staking APY rather than advertised rates, and when it needs exit-cost context. However, it does not explicitly compare it to any sibling or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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