get_protocol_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Get' implies a read-only call, and it does disclose what content is returned (runtime and economics parameters), which is real behavioral value. It stops short of stating idempotency, caching, or whether the config is a static snapshot, leaving gaps a zero-annotation tool must otherwise cover.

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 wasted words. The action and the resource lead, and the returned scope follows immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information, and it only gestures at 'runtime and economics parameters' without naming the concrete fields or shape. Adequate for routing, thin for consumption.

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 beyond the schema. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('NEAR protocol configuration') and enumerates the scope ('runtime and economics parameters'). A sibling like get_gas_price or get_validators is clearly a narrower slice, but the description never explicitly says it is the umbrella config call, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. An agent cannot tell whether to prefer this over the more specific protocol getters (get_gas_price, get_validators) or when a full config fetch is warranted versus a targeted one.

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