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

The read-only nature is already indicated by annotations (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds semantic context about topoheight being canonical but does not elaborate on error handling, edge cases, or the structure of the returned header. It meets the minimum bar but lacks deeper behavioral insights.

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 well-structured with separate sections for description, when to call, and input requirements. However, it is somewhat repetitive, restating the same information about topoheight in multiple places. Still, the organization aids readability.

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 getter by height, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and the key input constraint. It does not explain the return structure, but that is not required. The mention of checking current topoheight via dero_get_info adds completeness. Overall, it is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 description enriches the parameter 'topoheight' beyond the schema's basic integer type and min/max. It adds a critical constraint: 'no greater than the current topoheight' and advises to 'call dero_get_info first if unsure.' This is vital for correct usage and not derivable from the schema alone, providing substantial added meaning.

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's function: retrieving a block header by topological height. It explicitly distinguishes this from other getters (e.g., by hash or chain height) and explains the difference between topoheight and height, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides direct guidance on when to use this tool: 'when you need a header keyed by topo position rather than chain height.' This creates a clear contrast with alternative methods and sets expectations for the appropriate context.

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