Get Instances Customers Wallets Yield

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 for free. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what data is returned, whether it reflects live accrual, or any rate/size considerations that would matter for a yield endpoint.

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 words is not concision but under-specification; there is no front-loaded context an agent can act on. Nothing is wasted, but nothing earns its place either because there is almost nothing there.

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?

Three required parameters with no output schema means the description must carry the burden of explaining what comes back and how the IDs combine, and it does not. Given the crowded yield sub-family, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to call the tool confidently.

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 only 33%, and the sole documented parameter (customer_id) is described only as "Customer ID," which is tautological. Critically, the description does not clarify what the required `id` is (wallet ID? yield position ID?) or what `instance_id` scopes, so the ambiguous parameter is left entirely to guesswork.

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 verb (Retrieve) and a resource (Wallet Yield), but "Wallet Yield" is ambiguous — the sibling set contains YieldEnable, YieldDisable, YieldHistory, and YieldTransactions, and the description gives no clue which facet of yield this returns (current configuration vs. accrued amount). An agent cannot reliably distinguish it from GetV1InstancesCustomersWalletsYieldHistory without inferring from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the four sibling yield tools, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., whether yield must be enabled first). Usage must be inferred entirely from naming conventions.

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