get_protocol_stats

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

With no annotations, the description discloses 'Read-only. No authentication required. No parameters.' and that it returns counts, not individual data. No contradictions, but could mention rate limits or side effects (though none expected).

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 concise, well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, exclusions, behavioral traits, and return format. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, output schema exists), the description fully explains what it does, when to use, and what it returns. No gaps.

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?

No parameters (0 params) per schema. The description states 'No parameters' which aligns with schema. Baseline 4 per rule for 0 params.

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 it gets 'network-wide aggregate statistics' and distinguishes from siblings like check_reputation for individual agents and search_agents for finding by capability.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: to answer 'how big is the AVP network?' or 'is the service active?' before registering an agent. Also states when not to use and provides alternative tools.

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