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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already established; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that, disclosing that the output is conditionally an unsigned call, that the exit is a two-stage request-then-withdrawal process, that the request halts the share immediately, and that the withdrawal follows after 7 days.

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?

It is a single dense sentence that front-loads the read purpose before the conditional exit behavior. Every clause carries information, though the run-on structure and the second half (exit flow detail) make it slightly heavy for one sentence.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return burden and does so: it enumerates returned content (who deposited, how much, whether the 0.03% share is flowing) and explains the conditional unsigned call. The main remaining gap is the lack of any explicit note on the sibling tool to use for pure planning/execution.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description clarifies the special conditional role of `account` (only produces the exit call when it matches the creator), which adds marginal value but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (reads) and resource (creator minimum deposited for a block's market) with concrete scope, and further distinguishes its conditional mode (returns the unsigned exit call when account is the creator). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like tblock_command or tblock_plan_swap, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It implies usage via the conditional 'when `account` is that creator' branch and describes the two-step exit sequence, giving the agent a sense of context. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus the sibling tblock_plan_* or tblock_command tools, nor any exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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