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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a list with position number, net_apy_pct, gross_apy_pct, gas details, and data completeness scores. It also requires an api_key. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or that it is read-only, though 'get' implies no side effects.

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 organized with a purpose sentence, an Args section, and a Returns section. Each line is necessary and adds value. It is efficient without being terse.

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?

With no output schema, the Returns section explicitly lists the output fields. All parameters are covered with defaults and constraints. Missing details like edge-case behavior (e.g., empty results) and error handling are minor, making it nearly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains all four parameters with allowed values (window_days: 7,14,30,90; strategy: supply/borrow), defaults, and max for top_n. This is excellent compensation.

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 'Get ranked list of best DeFi lending returns, sorted by net APY,' with a specific resource (DeFi lending returns) and sorting criterion. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_returns, which would likely provide unranked returns.

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool (when a ranked list is desired), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Given sibling tools exist, explicit differentiation would earn a 5, but the context is clear enough.

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