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

The description discloses that the tool returns version, stats, and available tools—a read operation with no side effects. No annotations are provided, but for a simple info tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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 sentences, highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it returns. It's complete for its scope, though could mention if it's public or requires auth.

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?

No parameters, so baseline 4. The description adds meaning by specifying what kind of info is returned, beyond the empty schema.

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 tool gets AGENZA canister info including version, stats, and available tools. It distinguishes from siblings like agenza_credit_score, agenza_register, and agenza_verify by focusing on discovery rather than specific operations.

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 states it is 'useful for discovering the protocol's capabilities,' which implies when to use it. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or list alternatives, the sibling tools provide clear context for alternative use cases.

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