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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return shape (name, id, description, website, TVL, type). It doesn't mention that results are paginated, though the schema handles that.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, why to call it, and how it feeds a sibling. Return-shape detail is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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, two-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage context thoroughly. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% with only limit and offset, both fully documented in the schema. The description adds no pagination or page-size guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Discover") and concrete resource (supported protocols and validator providers) with named examples like Lido, Aave, Morpho, and it enumerates the returned fields. The agent can distinguish this listing tool from the yields_* siblings without opening the schema.

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 explicit use cases ("answer 'what protocols does Yield.xyz support?'") and, crucially, names the downstream dependency: valid provider IDs for yields_get_all filters. That connects it to a specific sibling tool with a stated condition.

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