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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it discloses the shape of the return content (individual risk items grouped by category such as smart contract, liquidity, counterparty), which is important given there is no output schema.

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, each doing distinct work: what it returns, how it differs from the sibling, and when to invoke it. No repetition of the title or 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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece—what the response contains at a high level. It could say more about risk item structure or how invalid yield IDs behave, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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% and the single yieldId parameter is documented in the schema with a format example. The description adds no further semantics about the identifier, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameter documentation 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Get detailed risk parameters for a yield") and explicitly contrasts the scope with the sibling tool yields_get, noting it is "more granular than the risk field." An agent can distinguish this from yields_get without opening either 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?

It gives a concrete trigger ("Use this when the user asks about protocol safety or risk") and implicitly routes detail-seeking queries here rather than to yields_get's summary risk field. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g. when only a top-level risk score is needed), but the context is clear.

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