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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: values are rendered 'in plain words', recent changes are included, and the data is refreshed 'from the chain every hour', which tells the agent about freshness and interpretation. It does not discuss failure modes for unknown slugs or what 'recent changes' means precisely, keeping it below a 5.

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 dense sentence that front-loads what is returned and follows with scope and freshness. Every clause carries information (the enumerated parameter categories, plain-language rendering, recent changes, hourly refresh), though the long list could be easier to scan if split into two sentences.

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-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description does well: it names the categories of data returned, states that values are human-readable, mentions recent changes, and gives the data freshness cadence. It does not describe the response shape or error behavior, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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%: the single network parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the example slugs 'kava' and 'aztec' and the instruction to get slugs from list-networks. The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific resource and scope: one network's chain-level rules, enumerating concrete examples (unbonding time, active set size, minimum commission, slashing, governance thresholds, inflation, fees). An agent can tell this returns parameter values for a single network, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling network-status tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of chain rules and the phrase 'One network's rules' – an agent can infer this is for inspecting protocol parameters rather than validators or news. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the required network slug being obtained from list-networks within the description, and no stated alternatives.

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