Blockchain glossary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and data-source profile is covered. The description adds the source domain and the omit-term listing behavior, but says nothing about unknown-term handling, matching behavior, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the optional-parameter behavior immediately after. Nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns ('plain-language definitions') and the listing mode. Only the error/empty-result behavior for an unknown term is left unstated, a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single 'term' parameter, and it does explain the empty-value case (omit to list all). It does not clarify exact vs. fuzzy matching, case sensitivity, or what happens with an unrecognized term.

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?

States a specific resource (plain-language blockchain definitions) and its source (blockchainlab.com), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like lookup_standard. The verb is implicit in 'definitions' rather than explicit like 'get', but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

'Omit term to list all terms' gives concrete usage guidance for the no-argument mode, which is genuinely useful since term is optional. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over lookup_standard or other sibling lookup tools, and no exclusions.

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