get_protocol_overview

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

The description implies a read-only operation, but without annotations, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects. It lists the data returned but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior on invalid networks. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 front-loads the action. Every word is necessary; no extraneous information.

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?

The tool has low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema). The description lists the types of data returned, which is helpful, but does not explain the structure or format of the response. It could be more complete by noting the default network or providing hints about the return values.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing the network parameter with enums and default. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves protocol addresses, ceilings, configured ilks, and PSM markets for USDD. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_protocol_metrics or get_psm_metrics, which may have overlapping purposes.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify whether to use get_protocol_overview or get_psm_status when PSM data is needed. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or context on prerequisites.

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