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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: fixed cardinality (254), sort order (biggest stake first), and the definition of uptime as completed/requested proposals. It does not discuss pagination or truncation when limit is below 254, which is the main remaining gap.

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 dense sentence front-loads the resource and scope, then enumerates returned fields, then closes with the safety note. No filler, and the parentheticals each carry information rather than padding.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and their ordering, which an agent otherwise could not know. For a two-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only behavior when limit truncates the 254-item set is unstated.

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 both limit and search are already documented, and the description's mention of '254' only echoes the schema maximum. It adds no semantics for the search parameter (whether matching is case-sensitive or on name only beyond what the schema says), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource with precise scope: the fixed set of Olympia validators (254) as of Olympia's end, plus exactly which fields are returned. It is clearly distinct from olympia_get_validator and list_validators in substance, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 'as Olympia ended' (historical snapshot, not live validator state), which is useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to list_validators for current validators or olympia_get_validator for a single record.

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