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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is free, that behavior depends on whether the block is claimed or unclaimed, and exactly what information is returned in each case. It does not mention error behavior, but the schema covers coordinate validation.

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?

The description is two concise clauses that state the core behavior, both possible outputs, and the cost implication. Every word adds information, and the most important conditional distinction is front-loaded.

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?

Given the single parameter and absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains both output cases and the free nature of the call. A more explicit pointer to buy_block for unclaimed blocks would improve completeness slightly.

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 single parameter coord is fully documented in the schema, including format and range, so the schema already provides the necessary semantic meaning. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but it does not need to given 100% schema coverage.

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?

The description uses a clear verb and resource—it inspects exactly one block—and specifies what is returned for both claimed and unclaimed states. It semantically distinguishes itself from siblings like buy_block and list_unclaimed by focusing on per-block inspection rather than purchase or enumeration.

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 context is clear: this is the tool to inspect a specific block's deed or its availability and x402 purchase terms. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of fully explicit usage guidance.

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