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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It discloses precisely what data the agent gets back (height, sync progress, peers, mempool size, client version), which sets correct expectations for a status query. It does not state that the call is side-effect-free or what happens for an unreachable/unknown chain, but for a read-only 'query' verb the residual risk is small.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then uses tight bracketed sections for when-to-use and when-not-to-use. Every clause earns its place; no filler or restated name/title.

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 present, the description must describe the returned metrics, and it does so explicitly. Combined with routing guidance for the fee/balance siblings, the definition is complete enough for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single required parameter whose enum and description are already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond that, 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 and resource: queries the running status of one chain's node, and enumerates exactly what is reported (block height, sync progress, peer count, mempool tx count, client version). The scope is narrowed to a single chain, so an agent can distinguish it from multi-chain or non-node-status siblings.

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?

Explicit 何时用 section names the triggering question ('is this chain's node synced/healthy/behind') and the 不要用 section routes the agent to btc_fee_estimates/xmr_fee_estimate for fees and btc_address_summary for balances. It does not address the overlapping status siblings (utxo_chain_status, zec_chain_info), leaving some ambiguity unresolved, so it falls short of a full 5.

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