query_protocol_docs

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: return structure (metadata header + body), truncation at 4K chars without query, token-saving behavior with query. No contradictions or omissions.

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 well-structured with purpose first, then behavioral details, then parameter list. Slightly lengthier than necessary due to examples, but 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 and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers return structure and behavior under different query conditions, providing complete context for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds substantial meaning: example values for proposal_id ('eip-1559', 'bip-341', 'erc-20') and query ('base fee calculation', 'security') clarify expected inputs beyond basic type/required info.

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 'Read the specification of a blockchain protocol proposal' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_fork_proposals (lists proposals) and resolve_proposal (resolves ID), making purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains when to use the query parameter: 'with a query returns only relevant sections (saves tokens); without query returns full text truncated to 4K chars'. It also references resolve_proposal as the source of proposal_id.

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