get_protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not confirm this, nor does it mention any constraints, limitations, or return format. It adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 that is clear, front-loaded, and free of superfluous words. It efficiently states the action and object.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits what 'detailed information' encompasses. Given the existence of sibling tools like get_protocol_summary and get_protocol_contracts, a clearer boundary would improve completeness. No output schema exists, so a bit more detail on the return value would be warranted.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter (protocolId) with type and examples, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds the phrase 'by ID', which aligns with the schema but no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 tool 'Get detailed information about a specific Algorand protocol by ID', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_protocols (plural) and get_protocol_summary by emphasizing 'specific' and 'by ID', though it doesn't elaborate what 'detailed information' includes.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you have a specific protocol ID and want detailed info. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as get_protocol_summary or get_protocol_contracts, which could be more appropriate for narrower needs.

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