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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, and 'Live decoded on-ledger state' reinforces freshness. The description adds the response contents (package, blueprint), but gives no error behavior, auth/permission notes, or data-volume context, so with annotations covering safety this lands at an adequate 3.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and appending the sibling routing note. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating what the state includes plus the package/blueprint. Complete enough for correct invocation, though error and edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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%, so the schema fully documents address format and the network enum/default. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the correct baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get decoded on-ledger state of a component'), gives concrete examples (oracle prices, pool reserves, configuration), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_component_blueprint. An agent can tell it apart from get_component_blueprint without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_component_blueprint for callable methods, which is the most likely confusion given the sibling name. It does not, however, clarify when to prefer this over other state readers like get_validator_state or get_key_value_store.

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