get_block

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

The description only repeats the input method (by number or hash) which is already in the schema. It adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). Since annotations already cover safety, the description contributes nothing further, but it does not contradict them.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and input types. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and annotations cover safety, so the minimal description is somewhat adequate. However, with numerous sibling tools and no mention of what 'block details' include or return format, the context is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's place.

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% for both parameters (network and blockIdentifier), so the schema already explains the inputs. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.

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 action (Get) and resource (block details) and specifies the input types (block number or hash). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_block_by_num or get_block_by_id, so it stops short of a 5.

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 use this tool versus the many sibling block-related tools (get_block_by_num, get_block_by_id, get_latest_block, etc.). No exclusions, alternatives, or context are provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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