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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only lists returned quantities. It never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup, nor anything about data source, freshness, or auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, listing the four returned metrics compactly. It is efficient, though it remains a fragment rather than a complete 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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information — and it does name the four metrics. However, it gives no sense of format, units, or whether all four are always present, leaving it adequate but thin for the sole documentation of 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no semantic gap for the description to fill. This is the baseline-4 case for parameterless tools.

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 names the specific resource (SDL supply) and enumerates the exact values returned: total supply, treasury balances, non-circulating, and circulating supply. It is clearly distinct from neighboring supply/staking tools, though it lacks an explicit verb and reads as a noun-phrase list of outputs.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus siblings such as sdl_get_sdl_pool, sdl_get_sdl_tier_distribution, or sdl_protocol_summary. The agent must infer selection from the resource name alone.

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