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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: snapshot refreshed every 15 minutes without filters, live fetch with filters or >50 events, and event titles marked untrusted because they quote user-typed names. These are exactly the operational and trust traits an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope. Every clause (network, chain id, event types, refresh behaviour, untrusted titles, sibling pointer) earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema, so the description must cover return values; it names the event categories and the untrusted-title attribute, and discloses refresh/fetch behaviour. It could say more about pagination or ordering guarantees beyond 'newest first', but coverage is strong for a list tool.

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 75%, so the schema documents most params. The description adds meaning the schema doesn't: the 15-min-snapshot vs live-fetch distinction keyed to type/validator filters and the >50-event threshold, plus the untrusted-title caveat tied to the validator field.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (events on the Celestia Fibre network / Mocha testnet), enumerates the event types covered, and names the sibling for per-validator records (get_fibre_validator). Distinguishable from get_fibre_validator, list_fibre_validators, and get_fibre_network_status immediately.

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?

Clearly implies when to use (browsing recent Fibre activity) and directs to get_fibre_validator for a single validator's history. Explicit when-not guidance for the filter behaviours is present, but alternatives like get_fibre_network_status or get_fibre_blob_market are not addressed.

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