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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It mentions 'across 200+ chains' indicating broad scope, and '$0.02' hints at cost, but it does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, authentication requirements, or return format. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 very concise (one short sentence plus cost note). It front-loads the main idea, but lacks structure (e.g., no sections or bullet points). While not verbose, it is arguably too brief to convey essential 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what data is returned, how to use limit or minApy, or what the response structure looks like.

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 0%, yet the description adds no information about the parameters (chain, limit, minApy, api_key). The description only implicitly mentions chains but does not explain defaults, valid values, or how parameters affect results. It provides no added value over the raw schema.

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 'DeFi yield farming: APY, TVL, protocols across 200+ chains', which clearly indicates the tool retrieves yield farming data including APY, TVL, and protocols. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_defi_tvl' (TVL only) and 'get_defi_protocol' (protocol info) by combining multiple aspects, though it does not explicitly state it returns a list.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_defi_pools' or 'get_defi_tvl'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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