get_protocol_summary

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the specific data fields returned (Comptroller config, close factor, etc.), going beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key outputs. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description sufficiently covers the purpose and return content. No additional context is necessary.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the input schema fully describes the single optional parameter 'network' and its default. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'JustLend protocol-level info', listing specific outputs: Comptroller config, close factor, liquidation incentive, total markets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account_summary or get_market_data.

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 implies use for obtaining protocol-level information but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_account_summary or get_market_data. No when-not-to-use or alternative naming is given.

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