mx-sdk-dapp-guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content scope and that a section can be extracted, but never states the operation is read-only/idempotent, what happens if the requested section name does not exist, or how the guide content is returned. For a low-risk documentation fetch this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, followed by the parameter behavior. The topic list is long but it is informative rather than padding, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is fetched, what topics are included, and what the parameter does. The remaining gaps (section name enumeration, not-found behavior, return format) are minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates that the section parameter is optional and causes extraction of a specific section, which adds a little behavioral meaning over the schema's field description but no format, casing, or matching rules beyond the schema's own examples.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and a precise resource ('MultiversX SDK-DAPP v5 guide') and enumerates the covered topics (setup, React/TypeScript/JavaScript/Angular usage, login/logout, signing, transactions, custom providers). This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the only sibling, mx-query-account, which is a chain-state query rather than a documentation lookup.

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 when to use it (when you need SDK-DAPP v5 guidance) and explains the optional section parameter's effect, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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