get_curator_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the detailed information returns. The description mentions what information is included but not how it's structured or delivered.

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, efficient sentence that packs substantial information about what the tool returns. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool with one parameter, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with the core purpose before listing specific data points.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides reasonable coverage of what information is returned. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, error handling, and response format that would be needed for optimal agent usage.

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 description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'curatorId' documented as 'Curator ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added by the description regarding parameters.

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 detailed information') and resource ('vault curator'), with specific details about what information is included (managed vaults, TVL, chain distribution, performance). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_vault' or 'get_protocol_info' which might provide related but different information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_vault', 'get_protocol_info', and 'search_vaults' available, there's no indication of when this specific curator-focused tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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