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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral facts: a hard cap of 100 results, strict exclusivity of the height boundary, and the pagination contract — none of which are in the annotations.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering result cap, filter, and pagination, followed by a doc link and the REST operation. Every element is load-bearing; nothing is padded.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the cap, exclusivity, and pagination are all covered. The only gap is guidance on choosing this tool versus get_pool_blocks, which is left implicit.

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 at 0%, though the $defs do carry brief descriptions and a full pool enum. The description adds meaningful semantics for height ('strictly below', page cursor usage) but says nothing about slug beyond 'a specific pool', leaving the enum to speak for itself.

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 and resource ('Get up to 100 blocks mined by a specific pool') plus the scoping constraint ('strictly below the given height'), which clearly separates it from the parent-range siblings get_pool_blocks and get_blocks_from_height.

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?

Gives concrete usage context for pagination ('pass the last height of a page to get the next one'), which tells the agent how to iterate. It does not explicitly exclude or name alternatives like get_pool_blocks, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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