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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so that bar is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a $0.02 per-call x402 charge on Base, a prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, one free call/day per tool, and no API key. It also discloses methodology (redemption price now vs N days ago from an archival node) that the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then methodology, then parameters, then pricing, which is a sensible order. It is dense but slightly rambling across em-dash clauses and a long pricing sentence; a small amount of tightening would help without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description still sketches what is returned (APY, staked amounts, exit cost). Given the tool's complexity, the pricing/auth model is fully spelled out, leaving only minor gaps such as freshness/latency of the archival read.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds one piece of meaning beyond the schema — the default of 7 for the window — and clarifies that size is the exit notional in USD, but does not add format or edge-case guidance (e.g. what happens at bounds, unit parsing for string inputs).

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 and resource: measures on-chain APY of NEAR liquid staking (LiNEAR, Meta Pool stNEAR), plus staked amounts and instant-exit cost. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like yield_scout, exit_liquidity, and near_swap, which an agent can rule out without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context for use: real measured rates rather than advertised, working over a configurable window, and comparing instant exit via wNEAR/NEAR Intents against ~2-3 day unstaking. It stops short of explicitly naming a competing sibling ('use yield_scout instead for...'), so no hard exclusivity statement.

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