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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at provenance ('from on chain state with explicit source labeling'), which is a useful behavioral signal, but says nothing about whether it is a read-only aggregator, how large the snapshot is, whether it is cached, or how sources are surfaced in the response.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and its source. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though the compressed noun stack ('protocol wide SDL snapshot from on chain state') costs some readability.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only signal the agent gets. It conveys what the snapshot covers and where the data comes from, but omits when it should be preferred over the granular sibling tools and gives no sense of the response shape.

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 baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates.

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 a resource (protocol-wide SDL snapshot) and its origin (on-chain state), but the verb is implicit and the phrasing is dense jargon. It does not distinguish this aggregate snapshot from siblings like sdl_get_sdl_supply, sdl_get_registry, or sdl_search_protocol that also surface protocol data.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sdl_get_* alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the aggregate/overview entry point from the phrase 'protocol wide' alone.

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