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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output ordering (most recent first) and the included fields (fork point, depth, affected transactions), giving useful behavioral context. It doesn't specify pagination or limits, but the description adds meaningful transparency beyond a bare 'shows reorgs'.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core resource (Monero chain reorganizations), then specifies the ordering and key fields, with no wasted words.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear picture of what is returned: reorgs with fork point, depth, and affected transactions, in reverse chronological order. It is a simple read-only list; it could be more explicit about the return type (e.g., array) but is adequate for its complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters, and the schema is wholly empty without any property definitions. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs.

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 tool's purpose: listing detected Monero chain reorganizations with specific fields (fork point, depth, affected transactions) and ordering (most recent first). This distinguishes it from siblings like reorg_stats and recent_orphans by focusing on individual reorg events with their details.

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 implies usage when one needs reorg details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like reorg_stats for aggregated statistics or recent_orphans for orphaned blocks. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided.

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