explorer_get_network_utilization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output is 'daily' and a 'percentage', but does not disclose additional behavioral details like data freshness, timezone handling, or response format. This is acceptable given the annotations but offers only minimal extra context.

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 sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently states the action, the data granularity, and the date-range scope, making it easily parseable.

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?

For a simple read-only metric tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the core function and expected output granularity. It lacks details about return structure or precise definition of 'network utilization', but given no output schema and the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema provides descriptions for 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what is already in the schema, such as date format examples or clarification of the 'sort' parameter. Meaning is fully captured by schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' along with the resource 'daily network utilization percentage' and a clear scope 'for a date range'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like explorer_get_daily_tx_count or explorer_get_daily_gas_used, which target different metrics.

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 the tool is used when network utilization data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No guidance is given beyond the core function, so it lacks explicit usage differentiation.

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