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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states this is 'descriptive data' with no recommendation, and clarifies that Aletheia never holds keys or dispatches transactions, positioning the tool as a non-mutating reference lookup. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool does and does not do, exceeding typical transparency for a read-only getter.

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 longer than average but well-structured: it opens with the primary output, then lists five bullet-point use cases, adds a responsibility clarifier, and finishes with the return shape. Every sentence contributes value and the bullet points aid scanning, though it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 reference tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates all return fields, provides concrete use cases, states that it is non-executing, and clarifies the agent's transaction responsibilities. An agent can confidently decide when to call this tool and what to expect from the response.

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 single parameter 'network' is fully described in the schema (enum values, default, and mainnet vs testnet distinction). The tool description only uses the phrase 'requested network' without adding any new semantics beyond the schema, so it does not elevate beyond the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is 100%.

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 begins with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Returns the Gavel Protocol's complete on-chain reference data for the requested network' and enumerates specific content (contract addresses, tokens, signatures, conventions, ABI references). This immediately differentiates it from sibling tools like get_loan_status or get_user_positions, which address specific entities rather than the full protocol reference.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool with concrete examples (look up a contract address, get function signature for placeBid, understand tokenId convention, find Etherscan link, confirm loan token whitelist). It also clarifies that it provides descriptive data only and that the agent is responsible for transaction construction, clearly distinguishing this reference tool from transaction-executing siblings like prepare_bid_calldata.

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