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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the content list: it says nothing about data freshness or snapshot semantics (notably absent given idempotentHint=false implies changing values over time), caching, or rate limits.

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; the verb and the returned metric categories come first. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does list representative fields (swap counts, volumes, liquidity metrics, RUNE price), which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It falls short of complete because it does not signal whether the list is exhaustive or clarify its relationship to the similarly-named network summary tools.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The enumerated metric categories partially compensate for the absent output schema, though they are return semantics rather than parameter semantics.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Returns global network statistics') and enumerates the payload categories (swap counts, volumes, liquidity metrics, RUNE price), so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-name siblings like get_network_info, get_network_summary, or get_pool_stats, which also sound like network-level aggregates.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Given a sibling set containing get_network_summary, get_network_info, get_tvl_history and get_rune_price_history, the description never explains why an agent would pick this Midgard aggregate over those.

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