get_nft_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses some return fields but doesn't mention network behavior, error conditions, authentication, or the read-only nature beyond the 'Get' verb. The 'if available' caveat is the only behavioral nuance.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence with a clear verb, resource, and relevant return fields. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and immediately understandable.

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 low-complexity tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately covers purpose and return fields. Without an output schema or annotations, it could benefit from mentioning network behavior or error handling, but it's sufficient for basic 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond naming the fields returned, which is baseline for full schema coverage.

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 gets detailed info about a specific NFT (ERC721 token) and lists key fields (collection name, symbol, token URI, current owner). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_nft_collection_info (collection-level) and get_nfts_by_owner (owner-level).

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 usage for querying a specific NFT token, which is clear context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is well-defined and there are no exclusions or misleading hints.

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