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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states ordering (newest first), result composition (orphan blocks plus canonical counterpart), and the meaning of the default 'all' window (last N orphans regardless of age). It does not mention side effect potential, but as a read-only query this is less critical.

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 entire description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose before detailing parameter constraints. There is no filler, and every clause contributes either to what the tool returns or how it behaves.

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?

For a read-only list tool with two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, ordering, parameter ranges, and default behavior. The main gap is the lack of an explicit output shape beyond 'orphan blocks with canonical counterpart', but that may be sufficient given the simple resource and absence of an output schema.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining limit range (1..50) and the accepted window values (24h,48h,7d,30d,90d,180d,1y,all), including the important default behavior. It does not explain the semantics of each window beyond the labels, but it adds substantial meaning that the bare schema lacks.

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 identifies the resource (orphan blocks), the operation (returning the most recent ones), and the distinguishing feature (paired with their canonical counterpart at the same height, newest first). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like reorgs or chain_fork_window, but the resource and pairing are specific enough to avoid major ambiguity.

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 provides helpful parameter usage context, such as the valid limit range Economies and the window options including the default 'all' behavior. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like reorgs, reorg_stats, or chain_fork_window, leaving the selection logic implicit.

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