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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about response shape, latency, or what happens with an unknown hash/height — so it contributes nothing beyond the annotations.

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 four-word sentence is maximally front-loaded with zero filler, which suits the shared 10% conciseness dimension. It scores below 5 only because the extreme brevity is better described as under-specification than as efficient conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameter meaning need not live in the description. Still, for a tool whose sibling set includes several near-neighbours (block_height, get_transaction), the description is thin enough that disambiguation is left entirely to the name.

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%, including a well-documented network enum with aliases, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'by hash or height', adding no format or resolution detail beyond what the schema already provides; 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?

The description states a clear verb+resource — retrieving block detail keyed by hash or height — so the core purpose is legible. However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as block_height or get_transaction, which an agent could plausibly reach for instead on the same underlying data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus block_height, get_transaction, or get_tx_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema.

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