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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only informational query by saying 'network info,' but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, any authentication needs, rate limits, or return format specifics. For a tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core concept ('TON network info') and immediately lists the key fields. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. This is an exemplary minimal description.

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 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description lists the essential data points and implies a read-only stats retrieval. It is complete enough for a basic informational tool, though it could benefit from confirming that an object containing these fields is returned.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies. It could have mentioned 'no inputs required' to reinforce usability, but this is not necessary.

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 identifies the resource (TON network) and specific data points (masterchain seqno, workchain, shard), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other aspects like DeFi or transactions. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get' or 'retrieve'), making it slightly less sharp than a fully specified purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The siblings like ton_overview or ton_wallet_info are not referenced, and there are no stated exclusions or prerequisites. The tool is simply described without any contextual framing.

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