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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only indicates a read operation ('Retrieve') but omits details such as side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a bare description.

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 sentence of about 20 words, front-loading key information. It is efficient and avoids redundancy. Slightly under-specified but still well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must compensate. It lists some returned fields but ends with 'other relevant data', which is vague. Given the tool's simplicity (no params), the description provides adequate but incomplete context.

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 zero parameters, schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by enumerating example data fields (staked assets, mint address, price, rewards) beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description justifies that score.

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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'current state of the Marinade Finance protocol'. It lists specific data items (staked assets, mint address, price, rewards), making the purpose unambiguous. The sibling tool 'search_documentation' is distinct, so there is no confusion.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. However, the single sibling tool suggests a straightforward distinction, so it meets the minimum viable level.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search returns 'contextual content with titles and direct links,' which is useful. However, it does not mention idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects. For a search tool, the behavior is fairly transparent, but there is room for improvement.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the purpose, then usage guidelines, and finally the return format. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It explains the return as 'contextual content with titles and direct links,' which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. Minor improvement could include specifying if results are ranked or limited.

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?

The schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'query' described as 'The search query string.' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches documentation for relevant information, code examples, API references, and guides. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('documentation'), and the purpose is distinct from the sibling tool 'get_marinade_state' which retrieves state 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 explicitly lists when to use the tool: 'when you need to answer questions about Marinade Finance Docs, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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