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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the output is plain text and lists contents, but it does not disclose any limitations, rate limits, or output details beyond what the annotations already convey.

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 that is front-loaded with the core resource name and format, followed by a compact, useful list of contents. There is no redundant wording.

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 no parameters, an output schema, and simple annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for a protocol information fetch. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which may still be inferred.

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?

With zero parameters and an empty input schema, the description carries the full semantic burden and does so by indicating exactly what kind of data will be returned. No parameter-level documentation is needed.

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 that protocol.info returns 'GBLIN llms.txt as plain text' and lists its contents: contract addresses, endpoints, prices, payment flow, and field contract of the attestation. This identifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like protocol.stats and receipts.get, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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 use when protocol-level information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. For a simple zero-parameter read, this is adequate but not fully explicit.

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