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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds the concrete return shape (block_hash, height, time, pools{sapling, orchard, ironwood}{final_root, final_state}) that no output schema provides. It does not state what happens when neither height nor block_hash is supplied, which is the main undisclosed behavior.

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-loaded with purpose, then use/avoid, then return fields; every clause carries information. The telegraphic phrasing ('shielded-pool depth - how the shielded sets advance over time') is dense but not padded.

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 correctly supplies the return structure and the safety profile comes from annotations. It is nearly complete; only the default block selection when both optional params are omitted is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no precedence rule between height and block_hash, nor the default (e.g., tip) when both are omitted, which are the only genuinely useful additions left.

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?

Names a specific resource (Zcash shielded commitment-tree state / anchor roots at a given block) with a clear domain scope. An agent can distinguish it from zec_get_pool_status and zec_get_transaction without opening either schema.

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?

Contains explicit 'When to use' (shielded-pool depth, anchor needed by a wallet or prover) and explicit 'Do not use' routing to two named siblings with the conditions that select them. Nothing is left to inference.

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