get_protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information' without mentioning read-only behavior, return format, pagination, errors, or what 'detailed' includes. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that lacks structured annotations.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words or filler. It front-loads the key verb and resource, making it quickly understandable.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain how to discover valid protocol IDs, what fields the 'detailed information' contains, or how this relates to sibling tools like get_protocols. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (protocolId is described with an example). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter. No compensation needed.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('detailed information about a specific Algorand protocol'), and scope ('by ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_protocols (plural list), get_protocol_summary (summary only), and get_protocol_contracts (contracts specifically).

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need detailed info on a specific protocol by ID. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this instead of get_protocols or get_protocol_summary, nor does it mention any prerequisites like fetching the ID first from get_protocols.

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