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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so by scoping results to delegation-based yields only and explaining that preferred=true returns curated/recommended entries, though it says nothing about result ordering or pagination mechanics (the output schema covers the return shape).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then downstream usage, then the curated-validator filter. No filler, no repetition of schema fields.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete safety annotations, the description carries only the narrative burden — and it covers purpose, domain constraint, and next-step routing. Only the absence of paging/ordering guidance (arguably covered by the schema and output schema) keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in structured form. The description reinforces the intended use of the address and preferred filters but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List validators') and scopes it to 'delegation-based yields such as Cosmos native staking or ETH native staking,' which cleanly separates it from sibling list tools like yields_get_all or providers_get_all. An agent can identify the tool's job and its domain without opening the 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?

It explicitly states the downstream use ('Use the validator address when calling actions_enter or actions_exit') and a concrete filtering shortcut ('preferred=true to show only curated validators'). It lacks an explicit when-not or prerequisite statement (e.g. what happens for non-delegation yields), so it falls short of a 5.

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