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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful payload context (header, transactions, commit data) — the only source of return-shape info since no output schema exists — but says nothing about error behavior for unknown heights or the potentially heavy response size.

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?

A single sentence with the resource and return contents front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 single-parameter getter, the description covers purpose, input, and the composition of the returned block, and annotations cover the safety profile. The one meaningful gap is that it does not help the agent choose among the several block-related siblings.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'height'. The description merely restates 'at the specified height' and adds no format, range, or validation detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 a block at the specified height') and scopes it to the Cosmos SDK blockchain, which is clear enough to act on. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many block-reading siblings such as get_block, get_cometbft_block, or get_cosmos_latest_block, leaving the agent to guess which 'block' tool is the right one.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. Given siblings like get_block, get_cometbft_block, and get_cosmos_latest_block, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap rather than a minor omission.

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