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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a directory of network identifiers plus names and categories, which is meaningful signal since there is no output schema. It does not say whether the list is paginated or how large it typically is.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and immediately followed by the prerequisite use case. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 description correctly names the returned fields and ties the tool into a dependency chain with other yield tools. The only omission is that the optional search/category filters exist and can narrow the result, which an agent would only learn from the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (search, category) are fully documented with examples and an enum, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the filters, not even that filtering is possible, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 (discover supported networks) and enumerates the fields returned (IDs, names, categories). The framing as a lookup/enumeration tool clearly separates it from sibling list tools such as providers_get_all and yields_get_all.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the use case: resolve valid network slugs before calling yields_get_all, yields_get_balances, or any tool needing a network parameter. This names the alternatives and the condition that selects them, leaving nothing to inference.

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