getHoldToEarnYieldHistory

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: required Earn permission, newest-first sorting, and a precise cursor-based pagination protocol including how to start, continue, and detect the last page. It does not describe the response record shape, but the core call behavior is well disclosed.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: purpose, permission, sort order, and pagination are each stated in short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds useful 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?

For a read-only, no-required-parameters query endpoint, the description covers the essential call behavior: purpose, permission, sorting, and pagination. The main gaps are the undocumented time-range parameters and the lack of return-field details, but these are somewhat mitigated by optional parameters and the clear tool purpose.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does explain cursor semantics precisely: omit on first request, pass nextCursor on later requests. However, timeStart, timeEnd, and limit are not described, so the agent must rely on property names and schema constraints, leaving some ambiguity around time units and behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Query') and a clear resource ('personal yield distribution history for Hold-to-Earn products'), making the tool's scope easy to grasp. It is distinct enough from generic Earn-related siblings by naming the Hold-to-Earn product type, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool.

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?

The intended use is implied: use this when you need a Hold-to-Earn customer's yield distribution history. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as getEarnYieldHistory or getEarnHourlyYieldHistory, leaving the usage decision somewhat inferred.

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