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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the description is free to add operational detail — and it does: exited PoS validators follow live rows newest-exit-first, status 'exit' returns only them, and each live PoS row carries selected/paid counts and the current epoch's selection. Only pagination or result-limit behavior is unstated.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (fields, status semantics, filter/sort rules, ordering rules) with the resource identity front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters and no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape — it names the fields and the row ordering, which is substantial. It stops short of describing any pagination, result caps, or empty-result behavior an agent would want before calling a listing endpoint.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: sort direction is specified per field (fee ascending, others descending), fee/room are flagged as PoS-only, and the otherwise-unenumerated `status` parameter is explained via the epoch-selection vocabulary (selected / not selected / exit) plus the special 'exit'-only behavior.

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 definition opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement ('Every PoS validator and Storeman node') and enumerates the profile fields returned (stake, APR, fee, room, delegators, status), which lets an agent distinguish it from the singular sibling get_validator 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?

'Filter by type and status; sort by stake, apr, fee, room or delegators' tells the agent how to narrow and order results, which implies the tool's use case. However, it never names get_validator as the alternative for a single node, nor states when not to use this listing.

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