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

The description labels the operation as 'read-only', which is a useful behavioral disclosure given there are no annotations. However, it fails to complete the explanation of what happens when neither parameter is provided, and it does not mention edge cases like invalid hashes or negative heights, leaving behavioral expectations unclear.

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 a single, incomplete sentence that ends abruptly ('With neither, reads'). This is not concise but structurally broken, indicating a likely truncation error. It fails to form a complete thought and therefore does not earn credit for efficiency.

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?

Although an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description still needs to clarify the tool's fallback behavior and parameter semantics. The truncated sentence and lack of parameter explanation mean the tool is not fully specified, especially for the case where neither parameter is passed.

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 schema provides defaults (hash='', height=-1) but zero description coverage. The description names both parameters ('height' and 'hash') and indicates they are alternative selectors, but it does not explain the meaning of the defaults, what occurs if both are provided, or how the parameters are validated. This leaves the agent to rely entirely on the schema without additional context.

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 reads a block by 'height' or 'hash', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'animica_chain_head' or 'animica_chain_account'. However, the trailing sentence 'With neither, reads' is incomplete, leaving the fallback behavior ambiguous and slightly diminishing clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'animica_chain_head' for the latest block or 'animica_chain_account' for account info. The truncated fallback sentence hints at a default behavior but does not specify it, so usage context is not fully conveyed.

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