Check Self protocol network status and contracts

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about what's checked ('deployment status and contract addresses'), which is useful beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific status information is returned. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline score for adding some value.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It matches the title closely but avoids tautology by being slightly more specific.

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 one parameter with full schema documentation, annotations covering safety, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It states the purpose clearly but lacks usage guidelines. For a simple read operation with good structured support, this is adequate though not comprehensive.

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 0%, but the description doesn't mention the 'network' parameter at all. The schema fully documents the parameter with enum values and a default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 purpose: 'Check Self protocol deployment status and contract addresses' - a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Self protocol deployment status and contract addresses'). It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., fetch_self_docs, explain_sdk_setup) by focusing on network/contract status rather than documentation or explanations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like read_hub_config which might overlap in checking configuration status.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare to siblings like read_hub_config or debug_verification_error. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection in this sibling-rich context.

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