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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral facts: results are capped at 8 and access is free. It does not specify return shape or empty/failure behavior, but with annotations covering safety, this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the data scope and result limit. 'Free' is brief and operationally useful; there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, limit, and cost. It leaves block contents and empty-response behavior unspecified, but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, with the account parameter described as a Keeta address starting keeta_. The description adds that it is the address whose own published blocks are returned, which clarifies meaning, but otherwise the schema does most of the work.

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?

Names the resource clearly: blocks published by an address, with the scope 'itself published' and the result cap 'up to 8'. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling such as get_activity or get_block, but the purpose is still distinguishable.

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 implies usage for outbox/published-block lookups rather than incoming activity, and 'Free' adds a cost cue. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives among the many sibling lookup tools.

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