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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context — which it does by naming the metadata dimensions returned and the entry/exit-open flag. It doesn't state behavior for an unknown yieldId or data freshness, keeping it below 5.

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, no filler; the capability statement is front-loaded and the actionable instruction follows. Every clause (fees, lock-up, cooldown, reward mechanics, open status) maps to a distinct piece of returned 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is sufficient to invoke correctly, though it lacks guidance on how to source a yieldId or what happens on an invalid one.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage and a concrete example ("ethereum-eth-lido-staking"), so the schema already carries the burden. The description adds no format, lookup, or discovery guidance (e.g., how to obtain a yieldId) beyond the schema 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 (get) and resource (metadata for a single yield opportunity) and enumerates the exact contents: fees, lock-up/cooldown, reward mechanics, entry/exit status. This clearly separates it from siblings like yields_get_risk, yields_get_tvl_history, and yields_get_validators without the agent needing to open a 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?

"Show this to the user before they commit to entering a position" gives a clear usage context and a placement in the workflow preceding actions_enter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use yields_get_all for browsing), so it stops short of a 5.

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