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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is conveyed. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the result (status, block height, signers) since no output schema exists, but says nothing about how the idempotency flag or stale/absent ban records behave.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The closing sentence on why bans exist is mild domain color rather than a load-bearing instruction, but nothing is padded or repetitive.

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 with no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the fields an agent will receive. Only minor gaps remain around absent-ban responses and any permission or rate considerations.

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%, so the single address parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the thor1... format. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ("Returns the ban status for a node address") and enumerates the returned fields (banned flag, block height, signers). It is clearly distinguishable in intent, though it never names or contrasts with sibling lookups like get_node or list_nodes.

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 explains what a ban is conceptually but never says when to reach for this tool versus related node lookups, nor any prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and domain knowledge.

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