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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the semantics of the return payload — the brain's verdict on each command, plans built, and what the user signed (transaction hash) or declined — which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and then enumerates the return content; nothing is wasted. The backtick-laden, metaphor-heavy phrasing ('wired to the block's brain') costs a little readability but does not pad length.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of explaining what the response contains. It omits pagination/volume behavior and error conditions (e.g. invalid or expired session), which are the remaining minor gaps.

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 both `session` and `since` are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes that `evenements` are events 'since `since`' without adding format, limits, or edge-case behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('the control panel') and names the two payload fields it returns, `cerveau` and `evenements`, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It stops short of positioning itself against siblings like tblock_panel_open or tblock_command, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The only routing hint is indirect: the session parameter is described (in the schema, not the description) as coming from tblock_panel_open, so the agent must infer that this is the follow-up read after opening a panel.

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