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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which signals no side effects, and describes the output content (height/hash and chain id). This is sufficient for a simple getter, though it does not mention potential error conditions or rate limits. Overall, it is transparent for the tool's simplicity.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by the output details. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently concise while remaining informative.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, output schema present), the description is complete. It specifies what the tool returns and that it is read-only. The output schema covers the return structure, so the description does not need to elaborate further. No critical information is 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter details. The input schema is empty and already communicates that no parameters are required. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for anything.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the chain head'), and explicitly lists the returned data (current height/hash and chain id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like animica_chain_account and animica_chain_block, which target different aspects of the chain.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever the chain head's height/hash or chain id is needed. The 'Read-only' label provides context that this is a safe, non-mutating operation, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The context is clear, though it could be improved by explicitly contrasting with sibling chain tools.

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