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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the fields returned (TVL, asset counts, oracle providers), implying a read-only listing. However, it says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or freshness of the 'dynamic data', which an agent would want for a listing endpoint.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose and return contents front-loaded, and the filter mentioned second. No wasted words, though formatting as a distinct usage line could improve scanability.

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 simple optional-filter list tool with no output schema, one parameter at full schema coverage, and no nested structures, the description covers purpose and return contents adequately. Missing pagination/ordering notes keep it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100% for the single query parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only that the query matches name/slug, a marginal clarification beyond the schema's 'search query to filter protocols'.

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 a specific verb (Get) and resource (lending protocols) and enumerates the returned data (TVL, asset counts, oracle providers), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_feeds or get_stablecoin_list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the resource is clear enough to route correctly.

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?

It only notes that the query filter is optional; there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus related siblings such as get_protocol_oracle_exposure or get_protocol_risk_params. Usage must be inferred from the resource name.

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