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

Annotations cover idempotency and safety, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: a concrete cost (0.005000 test USDC on eip155:84532) and the instruction to persist the private idempotencyKey across retries. It still omits what happens on payment failure or what the response contains.

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 no filler, and the cost/idempotency facts are easy to extract. The opening 'Read getblock from Bitcoin' is the weakest part but doesn't pad the rest.

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?

No output schema exists and the description doesn't describe return shape or the meaning of the verbosity flag, though for a paid RPC read the cost and idempotency notes cover the most agent-critical unknowns. The positional params gap keeps it from being complete.

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 50%: idempotencyKey is documented in the schema, but the required positional 'params' tuple (64-hex block hash plus a 0/1 verbosity flag) has no description anywhere. The description repeats the idempotencyKey advice but says nothing about the params array, which is the harder parameter to guess.

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 states a verb ('Read') and resource ('getblock') scoped to a specific Bitcoin chain identifier, but 'getblock' largely restates the tool name and the description never says what the call actually returns or how it differs from close siblings like bitcoin_getblockheader or bitcoin_getblockhash.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling block/transaction readers, nor on prerequisites such as payment or verbosity selection. The only usage-adjacent note is to preserve the idempotency key for retries.

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