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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It openly declares it as a write operation ('write'), specifies the mechanism (supervisor), requires 'admin JWT with write_system_settings', and clearly states what it does NOT fix. This goes beyond the minimal and gives an accurate behavioral model.

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 dense but every clause serves a purpose: action type, trigger condition, workflow, limitation, alternative, and permission. It is front-loaded with 'REMEDIATION ACTION (write)' and uses efficient formatting, with no wasted words.

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?

The description is complete for decision and invocation: it explains when to use, the expected workflow, the failure mode with a clear alternative, and required permissions. The presence of an output schema means return value details are unnecessary, and the parameter schema handles parameter specifics.

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 baseline is 3. The input schema already explains both parameters with examples and usage ('Omit when using all=true'). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 restarts a blockchain listener worker via supervisor as a remediation action. It distinguishes itself from diagnostic siblings like check_node_sync by explicitly labeling it as the minimal fix when chains lag or listeners are down.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance (when check_node_sync reports lagging/listener-down), a step-by-step workflow (check → restart → wait → re-check), and when-not-to-use with an alternative (unreachable RPC → fix dashboard config instead). Also notes required admin JWT permission.

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