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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the snapshot-vs-live refresh semantics, the 25-blob threshold that triggers a live fetch, newest-first ordering, testnet scope (mocha-5), and a data-trust caveat that namespace names are publisher-chosen and untrusted. It omits any error/empty-result or rate-limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 resource and scope are front-loaded, followed by tight sentences on freshness, trust, and the sibling alternative. The field enumeration is long, but since there is no output schema it earns its place as a return-value summary; only the density of that first sentence is a minor cost.

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 5-parameter, no-required-argument list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers identity, returned fields, ordering, freshness/liveness rules, trust caveats, and the single-blob alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it correctly appears to be missing.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: the limit interacts with a live-fetch threshold above 25, filter presence changes data provenance, and namespace values are untrusted labels. The chain default (mocha-5) aligns with the schema description, and the undocumented limit field's behavior is partially compensated by the threshold note.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List the latest blobs published through Celestia Fibre") and immediately enumerates the returned dimensions (time, namespace, size, fee in TIA, signature/stake share, 2/3 threshold, probe region, sampling proof). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_fibre_blob, which handles a single blob with signers, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 gives concrete context for when behavior changes: without filters it is a 15-minute snapshot, but with a namespace/payer/validator filter or more than 25 results it is fetched live from Cumulo. It names one alternative (get_fibre_blob) with the condition that selects it. It does not address the other adjacent list/search tools (list_fibre_events, search_fibre), so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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