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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys the 20-block cap and the returned fields, implying a safe read, but never states read-only semantics, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two compact clauses: the core purpose first, then a bracketed when-to-use tag. Nothing is padding and the scope/limit is front-loaded. Slightly dense but well structured.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly complete: it names the returned fields, which compensates for the missing output schema, and clarifies the block count cap. Only the absence of any read-only/rate-limit note keeps it from a 5.

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 the single parameter n is fully documented in the schema (default 5, min 1, max 20). The description only repeats the N max 20 constraint, adding no syntax or range meaning beyond the schema. 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 (查询/query) and resource (Zcash 最近 N 个区块) and enumerates the returned fields (高度、哈希、出块时间、难度), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling zec_chain_info, so it falls 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?

The 【何时用】 section gives a concrete triggering scenario: checking whether ZEC recent block production is normal and the block interval. This is clear context, but it names no alternative (e.g. zec_chain_info for broader chain state) and states no exclusions, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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