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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes nothing beyond that: it does not say how an unknown hash is handled, what the response contains, or note that this appears to be the v0/deprecated-style endpoint versus get_block_v1. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is acceptable but adds no value.

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 short lines with zero waste, so it is concise. However, it is front-loaded with a documentation URL rather than a plain-language statement of what the call returns, which is the wrong lead for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool sits among dozens of block-related siblings and the description does nothing to disambiguate selection. For a public blockchain API wrapper, the absence of any note on network scope, deprecation status relative to get_block_v1, or error behavior leaves the agent guessing.

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?

There is a single required parameter whose schema (via $defs.BlockHash) already supplies a 64-hex regex pattern, two live examples, and a description of byte order, so the parameter is well specified without the description's help. The description adds no formatting, casing, or encoding guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work and the prose adds nothing.

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 title 'Block information' is close to a restatement of the name, and the only concrete content is the REST path `GET /api/block/{hash}`, from which an agent must infer that this fetches a single block by hash. That inference is correct but nothing in the text distinguishes it from near-identical siblings such as get_block_v1, get_block_header, get_block_status, get_block_txid, or get_blocks. Purpose is implied by the endpoint, not stated.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named, despite at least six sibling tools that operate on blocks. The only hint that a hash (not a height or timestamp) is the selector comes from the URL template, which the agent must reverse-engineer. No exclusions, no prerequisites, no indication of which chain/network applies.

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