yield_projection

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that projections are estimates based on assumed rates, that results are not guaranteed, or that the tool is read-only. No details about limitations, data sources, or output behavior are provided.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. No unnecessary words or fluff, earning high marks for efficiency.

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?

Despite a simple 2-parameter schema, the description lacks essential context: it doesn't explain what the output looks like, what assumptions are used (e.g., current APY), or how it differs from yield_report. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should be more informative for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (amount, targetBalance) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter information, so it does not enhance what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool projects future USDs yield earnings with compound interest, using a specific verb ('Project') and resource. It distinguishes from related yield tools like usds_yield_balance (current balance) and usds_yield_history (past history) by focusing on 'future' growth, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage is implied ('See how your balance will grow over time'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling yield tools, nor any exclusions or alternative tool suggestions. An agent must infer the appropriate context.

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