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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states it 'gets information,' implying a read operation, but does not disclose return format, whether it returns all ACPs or a single one, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured annotation support.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or wasted detail.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return values or how this relates to sibling ACP tools. For its low complexity, it is minimally adequate but has room for improvement.

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 has 100% coverage for the sole parameter 'network', including enum values and default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema is complete, baseline 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 verb 'Get information' and the resource 'Avalanche Community Proposals (ACPs),' with specifics on what info is returned (status and vote counts). This is distinct from generic 'info' tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like acp_list or acp_lookup.

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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention acp_list or acp_lookup, nor any context for when this tool is preferred. The description provides no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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