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

Annotations already declare this a read-only operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context (it surfaces the transactions a vault signed at that height), but says nothing about result shape, pagination, or why idempotentHint is false for what looks like a pure query.

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 third sentence marginally restates the second but still earns its place as a usage cue, so the text is close to optimal size.

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 two-parameter read-only query with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The one material omission is disambiguation from the sibling `get_keysign`, which an agent needs in order to pick the right tool.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description restates 'block height and vault pubkey' but adds no format, range, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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') plus the exact scoping keys (block height and vault pubkey), which is more precise than the bare name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling `get_keysign`, which appears to be the unfiltered variant, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 a specific vault's signing activity' implies a use case but gives no explicit when/when-not rules and names no alternative. The natural alternative (`get_keysign`) is left unmentioned, so routing depends on the agent noticing the pubkey parameter.

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