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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that the tool returns valid IDs for create_node, which is useful but minimal additional behavioral insight beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence delivers essential usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with a defined output schema and clear annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. The 'call before create_node' guidance completes the picture, making the tool self-explanatory within its 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0 params, the description need not add parameter details. Its mention of 'valid blockchain and cloud IDs' provides relevant context for the tool's output.

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 function with a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('blockchain/cloud/network combinations for node deployment'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_nodes and get_chainstack_pricing by focusing on deployment options rather than existing nodes or pricing.

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 directs users to 'Call before create_node to get valid blockchain and cloud IDs', providing a clear when-to-use instruction. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance, but the prerequisite relationship is unambiguous.

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