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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing that only a single network is supported and that the response includes an execution boundary. The term 'execution boundary' remains undefined, preventing a higher score.

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 a single sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the key fact (return the single supported network) and then adds the secondary detail about the execution boundary. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what the caller receives. It identifies two elements — the recovery network and its execution boundary — but 'execution boundary' is left unexplained, leaving the output shape ambiguous. For a simple zero-parameter getter, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the parameter-semantics baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the return value rather than inputs, and there is no parameter documentation gap to compensate for.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and identifies a specific resource: 'the single supported recovery network and its execution boundary.' It adds precision beyond the title by noting there is exactly one supported network. However, 'execution boundary' is vague and could benefit from elaboration.

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving network information, and sibling names like get_methodology and get_pricing suggest different concerns. Yet it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, conditions, or alternatives. The intended usage is inferable but not fully stated.

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