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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful output-shape context — that a Bond Yield configuration may or may not be present and its fields are absent on nodes without one — but discloses nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or scope restrictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the Bond Yield nuance and pagination note. Nothing is wasted, though the middle sentence is somewhat dense relative to its marginal value.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields (status, bond amounts, operational info, Bond Yield config). Adequate for a paginated list tool, though it omits scope or auth caveats an agent might want.

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 the schema already documents limit (default 100, max 1000) and offset. The description merely restates that pagination is supported without adding any syntax or constraint beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 all registered validator nodes' — and enumerates the data returned (status, bond amounts, operational info). The 'list' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_node, but it never explicitly names a sibling such as get_midgard_nodes or get_bonds.

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 only states what the tool returns and that it supports pagination. It gives no when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing it over get_node, get_midgard_nodes, or get_bonds, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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