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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect profile are covered. The description adds genuinely valuable behavior: one product per category with no duplicate exposure, per-block gas checks at each block's own amount, a hard weight cap, a risk-budget admixture (default 10%) and a worst-single-failure metric — all non-obvious computation semantics. It also flags the advisory-boundary ('Checks, not advice').

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?

Purpose is front-loaded correctly, but the body is a single long run-on sentence with a dense comma-spliced list of return fields and parenthetical qualifiers. Given there is no output schema, most items earn their place, but the punctuation-heavy enumeration harms scannability and could be restructured into short grouped sentences.

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 parameterized, no-output-schema tool this covers the essential ground: what it consumes, what it returns (blocks, admixture, medians, blended vs. best yield, failure exposure, explainer) and its epistemic limits. The remaining gap is provenance — it never says which universe of products the blocks are drawn from or whether results are static or market-dependent.

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 would be 3, but the description adds conceptual linkage: the 'risk budget' and its 10% default map to admixture_pct, 'weight capped' maps to max_block_pct, and risk level is framed per category (max_risk). It does not explain amount_usd's interaction with gas deductions or price_exposure's effect on candidate eligibility beyond what the schema says.

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: it spreads an amount over several yield sources and returns an allocation plus diagnostics. An agent can distinguish it from catalog-search siblings like search_yield_products or yield_picks_of_the_week, though the description never names those alternatives or explicitly says when to prefer this over them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for constructing a diversified allocation rather than browsing products, and the closing 'Checks, not advice' clarifies it is analytical output. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites or how it relates to sibling tools that find or compare products.

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