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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful semantic context by calling the data 'canonical consensus data about who can produce blocks,' but it does not mention pagination behavior or any response-shape details beyond the listed fields.

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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise explanation of the data's significance.

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 read-only, three-parameter tool with fully described schema fields and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return content well enough despite no output schema, though it could mention pagination or default behavior when height is omitted.

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 schema fully documents page, height, and per_page. The description mentions the specified height and returned validator fields but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (returns the CometBFT validator set) and lists the returned fields (addresses, public keys, voting power). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling get_cosmos_validators tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cosmos_validators or get_cometbft_consensus_state. It also does not state when a height should be supplied versus omitted, leaving usage to inference.

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