get_network_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the hosted API behavior (reflecting server's view), but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, cached, or has rate-limiting implications.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose with specific field examples; the second provides deployment-specific context. Every word earns its place.

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?

Appropriate for the tool's low complexity. The description lists the specific network attributes covered, and since an output schema exists, it does not need to detail return values. The hosted API note addresses a key deployment consideration.

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 contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics where none exist.

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 the specific data points retrieved (protocol version, relay fee, connections, warnings) which distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_peer_info or get_blockchain_info. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when to prefer this over get_node_status.

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 provides useful context about data provenance in hosted API mode, which informs usage expectations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus similar network-state tools like get_peer_info or get_mempool_info.

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