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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the cross-tool dependency and the response path that downstream tools consume. It stops short of describing hydration/refresh behavior or whether balances are live vs cached, but the prerequisite disclosure is the critical piece and is clearly stated.

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, zero waste. The capability statement comes first and the ordering constraint plus its rationale second, so an agent gets the actionable rule immediately after the purpose.

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 does well to name the returned sections (balances, pendingActions) and the exact field path downstream tools need. It could say slightly more about what 'balances' contains or how empty results appear, but for a 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is close to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so address, network, and yieldIds are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only adds the framing that querying spans 'one or more yields' (implying yieldIds is an optional narrowing filter), which is marginal beyond the schema — 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 and resource ('Get current balances and pending actions') scoped to a wallet address across one or more yields, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list tools like yields_get and yields_get_all. The mention of the pendingActions passthrough makes the tool's distinctive output explicit.

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 an explicit, mandatory ordering rule: 'Always call this before actions_exit or actions_manage', and names the two sibling tools it gates. It also explains why — the passthrough value must originate from balances[].pendingActions[].passthrough — so an agent knows both when and why to select it.

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