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

The description only mentions the valid windows ('1h,24h,7d,30d,90d,1y,5y'), which is useful but minimal. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, yet it doesn't explain the return format, units, or whether it's a read-only operation. It implies a time series but omits important details.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that immediately state the purpose and the parameter options. There is no wasted wording, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what the tool returns (a time series) and the window options, but doesn't describe the response shape, units, or any behavior like pagination. This is a clear gap but not critical for such a simple tool.

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 has a single parameter 'window' with a default but no enum values. The description explicitly lists all valid window values ('1h,24h,7d,30d,90d,1y,5y'), providing essential information that the schema lacks. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Network hashrate time series', which clearly identifies the resource and the fact that it provides data over time. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_blocktime and network_emission by focusing specifically on hashrate. However, it lacks a verb, so it's not explicitly saying 'get' or 'return'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate. The description simply states what it does without situational context.

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