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 one genuinely behavioral fact — transactions are paginated at '25 a page' — but stays silent on auth needs, rate limits, and how a missing block is handled.

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 front-loaded sentence that lists the payload without padding. It is dense but every clause carries a distinct field, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does so thoroughly — identify, mining, economics, size, confirmations, and paginated transactions. Combined with annotations covering safety and the complete input schema, only troubleshooting details (invalid block, page overflow) are 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'block' (height, 64-hex hash, or 'latest') and 'page'. The description's only supplemental parameter meaning is the 25-per-page page size, which is the baseline 3 for a schema that 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 makes clear this returns a Dogecoin block and enumerates the fields (when found, miner/pool, payout address, reward, fees, size, confirmations, transactions) — enough to separate it from get_transaction or get_address. It never states the verb outright ('retrieve/fetch a block by height, hash, or latest'), relying on the name for that, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as find or get_transaction. The agent gets an inventory of returned fields but nothing that routes it to this tool over its siblings.

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