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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds content context but no significant behavioral traits beyond what the schema already states about omitting fields for the full object.

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 concise sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a succinct usage hint for the optional parameter. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with no required parameters, a single optional field, and annotations covering safety. The description specifies the return domain (network parameters with concrete categories) and how to limit results, which is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'fields' parameter, including examples and default behavior. The description merely paraphrases this ('Pass fields to return only the keys you need'), adding no new meaning.

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 states a clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('current THORChain network parameters') with concrete examples (outbound fees, bond/reserve totals, halt-related gas info). This distinguishes it from siblings get_swap_quote and list_pools, which serve different purposes.

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 implies this tool is for network parameters but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the listed siblings or mention any exclusions. The only usage guidance is about the 'fields' parameter, not tool selection.

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