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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a concrete detail about two bare-metal servers with HA redundancy, which is contextual but not deeply behavioral (e.g., no mention of response format or error scenarios). It adds some value beyond annotations, but not a large amount.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a specific infrastructure detail. Every word contributes meaningful information without redundancy or 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 simple zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies what infrastructure components are covered (hardware, redundancy, network, storage). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately, though it does not describe the exact return structure.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameters.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'Blueprint validator infrastructure specs' with specific components (server hardware, redundancy, network, storage), and distinguishes it from sibling getters focused on balances, transactions, and epochs. The verb 'Get' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 when needing infrastructure details of the validator, and there is no direct sibling alternative for this exact resource. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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