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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns current block heights, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it discloses nothing about parameter behavior, response format (covered by output schema), or potential limitations, which is a moderate gap for a simple lookup.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words after the opening. The redundant 'Block Height:' prefix repeats the tool name and title, but the rest of the sentence is concise and meaningful.

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?

For a tool with a parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the optional 'q' parameter, which is likely needed for basic customization (e.g., selecting a specific chain). The absence of annotations means the description should provide more context, but it does not.

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?

The input schema has one optional parameter 'q' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was required to compensate but failed entirely, leaving agents completely uninformed about what 'q' controls.

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 states the resource (Bitcoin and Ethereum block heights) and implies the operation through 'Current', making the tool's purpose clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'returns', which would make it fully unambiguous)Skip. It distinguishes from siblings such as cryptoprice by focusing specifically on block height.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or other crypto-related sibling tools. An agent would have to infer usage purely from the tool's name and basic purpose.

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