Beacon Network Stats

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'Get' and 'Returns', and it lists the result contents, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether the data is live or cached, whether authentication or registration is required, or whether any side effects occur.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second lists the return contents, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no-parameter stats endpoint with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the scope and enumerates the meaningful return categories. It could add context about data freshness or distinguish itself from network_health, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies, and the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('Beacon network statistics'), then enumerates the exact return categories: total agents, active count, provider breakdown, and protocol health status. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like network_health, which may overlap on health 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as beacon_agent_status, beacon_discover, or network_health. There are no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, so an agent must infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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