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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that the result is a per-height signing view containing outbound transaction details. It does not explain the non-idempotent hint, whether the view is historical/immutable, or how unpaginated the response may be.

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, front-loaded with purpose before usage. The second sentence's content and the third sentence's 'at a particular block' partially restate the opening, so there is minor redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does name the core payload (scheduled signing transactions with outbound details). For a one-parameter, read-only tool this is nearly enough; only edge cases like empty heights or response shape remain unaddressed.

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% for the single 'height' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description only repeats 'for a specific block height' without adding format, range, or whether the height may be a tip/pending height.

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 keysign information') and scopes it to a block height, then elaborates on the payload ('transactions scheduled to be signed at that height, including outbound transaction details'). It distinguishes itself implicitly from neighbors like get_keygen and get_scheduled_queue by being height-keyed, but it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'Use this to investigate signing operations at a particular block' gives an implied investigative context, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., get_keysign_pubkey or get_scheduled_queue) for agents that actually want the queue rather than historical signing at a height.

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