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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the response is plain text rather than a structured object — but says nothing about out-of-range heights, error behavior, or the underlying data source's eventual consistency.

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 payload is a single output statement front-loaded, followed by a doc link and the REST mapping. Every line is short and skimmable, though the docs link and REST operation are developer-facing filler for an agent that already has the schema.

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?

With a rich annotation set, a simple single-parameter schema, and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values — and it doesn't. However, for a lookup by height it omits the one thing not covered elsewhere: what happens for heights beyond the chain tip or below zero.

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 description coverage is reported as 0% at the property level, so the description should compensate, and it only does so implicitly via the `{height}` path template. It adds no range, no note that 0 is genesis, and no reference to the examples in the schema's Height definition.

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 states the returned resource (block hash) and pins it to a specific REST operation, `GET /api/block-height/{height}`, which makes clear the input is a height and the output is a hash. It is not tautological and implicitly differentiates from `get_block` (full block) and `get_block_tip_hash` (tip), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `get_block`, `get_block_header`, or `get_block_tip_hash`, all of which live in the same sibling list. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated; the agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone.

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