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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' plus a genuine extra: no account or auth is required. It also previews the returned fields (height, tip, intact), which is useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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, no waste, with the core action front-loaded before access and read-only qualifiers. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies exactly what is missing: what is checked (all blocks), what is returned (height, tip, integrity), who may call it (anyone), and its safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing inputs and instead spends its words on scope and results.

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 ('re-checks') and resource ('every block in the sebbi.pro chain'), and enumerates what comes back: height, tip, intactness. This scope separates it from the per-item verifiers among its siblings (verify_insurability, spend_verify, check_pack) without needing to open a schema.

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?

Implies the use case via 're-checks every block' — a full-chain audit rather than a single-item check — and clarifies access ('anyone can run it; no account needed'). It never names an alternative or an explicit when-not condition, so the agent must infer routing from the chain-wide scope.

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