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

The description discloses important behavioral details: it is a read-only data fetch (implied by 'current' and 'summary'), it supports optional account scoping, and it notes caching and pricing. Without annotations, this transparency helps agents understand side effects and performance characteristics.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add optional scoping and operational details. It avoids verbose explanations and stays focused on essential information.

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 simple read tool, the description is complete: it specifies the returned data (slot, height, time, fee summary), optional scoping, and operational details like pricing and caching. It does not describe an output schema, but the input is simple and the output is implied by the purpose, so nothing critical 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?

The description reiterates the only parameter ('accounts') with the same semantics as the schema: optional comma-separated pubkeys that scope the fee sample. While the schema already covers this, the description reinforces it and adds context that it limits to 'writable accounts', enhancing clarity.

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 states the tool's purpose: it returns current Solana slot, block height, block time, and a prioritization-fee summary. It also mentions optional scoping to up to five accounts, making the purpose specific and distinguishable from generic fee tools.

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 description provides some usage guidance by mentioning pricing ($0.002/call) and caching (readings cached 8 s), which implies call frequency considerations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternative fee or block-info tools, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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