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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add meaningful context: data is 'live from Cumulo', the 2/3 threshold is an 'exact integer check by Cumulo', and namespace names are publisher-chosen and 'marked untrusted' — a real data-trust caveat an agent should surface. It does not state the read-only nature explicitly or what happens when the blob is not found.

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?

It is a single sprawling sentence listing return fields rather than front-loading a clear purpose, and it duplicates content verbatim: 'how many validators signed and the share of stake' is followed later by 'how many validators signed, were not needed or were not eligible'. The redundancy and lack of structure cost 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?

With no output schema, enumerating the returned fields (height, payer, namespace, size, signing share, retention deadline, availability sampling) is genuinely load-bearing and gives the agent a sense of the response. The trust caveat and id-sourcing note round it out; only error/missing-blob behavior is unaddressed.

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 parameters are already documented. The description largely restates the id formats ('<txhash>:<message index>', tx hash, blob id) that the schema pattern already encodes, adding only the implicit note that omitting chain defaults to mocha-5 — baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific resource — a single Celestia Fibre blob settled on Mocha (mocha-5) sourced from Cumulo — with no verb but a clear noun-phrase scope that an agent can distinguish from list_fibre_blobs and search_fibre. It is specific about what the blob record contains, though the purpose would be crisper stated as an explicit 'retrieve' action.

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 tells the agent how to source the id ('the id from list_fibre_blobs') and that a tx hash or blob id also works, which is usable routing guidance. It never states when to prefer this over siblings like search_fibre, get_fibre_blob_market or get_fibre_network_status, and gives no exclusions.

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