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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Return' indicates a read-only operation and 'public' suggests no authentication is needed, but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, potential errors, or response format. Some additional behavioral detail would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that uses the verb 'Return' and lists specific config fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 (0 params, no output schema), and the description provides a useful enumeration of returned fields. However, it lacks an explicit statement about the response structure or potential error conditions, which would make it fully complete for an unannotated tool.

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 description does not need to explain them. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related info because none exists.

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 states 'Return public runtime config' and enumerates the contents (network, USDC asset, receive address, fees, limits, treasury mode), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_agent_contract and get_readiness by focusing on config 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?

The description implies usage when one needs public runtime configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the guidance at an implied level.

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