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

The description discloses that the tool returns a tip count (not topoheight) and the output format. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations but could mention it's a safe read operation.

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 concise with 5 short sentences, each serving a purpose: definition, distinguishing info, usage guidance, input clarity, and output format. 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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it returns, how it differs from a sibling, and when to use it. It is fully complete.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by stating 'Input Requirements: none,' confirming no inputs needed. This is clear and helpful, earning a baseline 4.

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 'Get the total block count' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the related sibling dero_get_height by indicating that it returns a tip count, not a topoheight. This provides clear differentiation.

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?

The description explicitly provides when to call ('when you need just the block count') and when not to ('PREFER dero_get_height when you need tip and stable heights together'), offering a direct alternative sibling.

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