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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that number lookups return the full text plus status, category, requirements, and replacement/supersession links, and that keyword lookups return a candidate standard. Gaps remain on what happens when nothing matches and on the remote-fetch nature of the call.

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?

One dense sentence built on semicolons; the resource is front-loaded and the two modes are separated cleanly. It borders on run-on and could be split, but no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter read lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains both input modes and sketches the return content. Only edge-case behavior (unknown NEP, empty search) is left unspecified.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single "nep" parameter and its dual number/word behavior. The description reinforces this with example queries ("fungible token", "storage"), but adds no format or matching semantics beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the specific resource (a NEAR NEP standard from github.com/near/NEPs) and the two retrieval modes (lookup by number, or by keywords). A reader knows it retrieves the full text of a standard, which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_doc or get_proposal, though the verb itself is only implied by the leading noun phrase.

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?

"Use when implementing FT, NFT, storage management, events, source metadata or wallet standards" gives concrete triggering contexts. It also clarifies which mode to pick (number for full text, words to find one). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g. get_doc vs get_standard) is given.

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