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

With readOnlyHint=true the safety profile is already covered, and the description usefully adds sort order and returned fields. However, it is silent on pagination/truncation behavior (the 200 cap) and on whether the full validator set is always returned, which matters for a list tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by the filter and the use case. No filler or 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the ordering, which is the key information an agent needs. It omits anything about result size limits or how to page beyond the limit parameter, leaving a small gap.

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 network, limit and find are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the find filter ("Filter by name or address with 'find'") and adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Lists the validators of the Radix network") and immediately scopes it with the ordering (stake rank) and the fields returned (stake, fee, uptime, APY). This clearly separates it from the single-entity sibling get_validator_state and from list_validator_operations.

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?

"Use it to answer questions about staking targets or a specific validator" gives an explicit use context, and the find-filter hint tells the agent how to reach the specific-validator case. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., use get_validator_state for a single validator's detail).

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