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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the data scope (most recent N blocks, N ≤ 20) and the diagnostic purpose. It does not mention response ordering or error behavior, but this is a simple read-only query with minimal risk.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the returned fields and cap, and the second provides a relevant use case.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description names the return fields and the intended use case. It does not explicitly state the response shape as a list of block objects, but 'most recent N blocks' strongly implies it.

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 schema already documents n with default, minimum, maximum, and a description. The tool description restates the N ≤ 20 cap but adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource (recent Zcash blocks) and the returned fields (height, hash, block time, difficulty). It is unambiguous and distinguishable from the Zcash chain info sibling, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.

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?

An explicit 'When to use' clause states the use case: checking whether ZEC is producing blocks normally and at what interval. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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