koios_epoch_params

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states a read operation but fails to describe what protocol parameters are returned, whether the output is a single object or a list, how pagination works, or any access restrictions. The description is too minimal to inform the agent beyond the action itself.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core function efficiently. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent can expect in the response and mention that all parameters are optional or that pagination is available. The description only states 'get protocol parameters' without addressing output format, pagination, or the scope of the result set. This leaves a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter individually described, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'specific epoch' adds minimal extra meaning aligning with the _epoch_no parameter, but does not clarify parameter interactions or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's function: 'Get protocol parameters for a specific epoch'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the target resource ('protocol parameters') with a scoping qualifier ('for a specific epoch'). This distinguishes it from parameter update tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with sibling tools like koios_cli_protocol_params.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other related tools. It does not mention that this returns historical epoch parameters, whereas koios_cli_protocol_params might be used for current parameters. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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