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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world behavior, and the description adds real signal: the "not_required" sentinel value and the conditional authorizeUrl on "not_started"/"pending". It doesn't discuss latency, caching, or error modes for invalid yield IDs, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences with the purpose first, the routing rule second, and the return-value edge cases last. No repetition of the title or schema text.

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 and rich annotations, the description need only cover purpose, timing, and notable return cases – all of which it does, including the KYC-gated RWA scenario that motivates the call.

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%, so both yieldId (with an example) and address are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the 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 the normalized KYC status of a wallet address for a yield') and scopes it to a yield. An agent can distinguish it immediately from siblings like yields_get_risk or actions_enter without opening any 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?

Explicitly says to call it before actions_enter on yields that gate deposits behind KYC, names concrete RWA examples (Securitize/Superstate), and tells the agent that non-gated yields return "not_required" – effectively the when-not case.

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