get_halving_countdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves countdown data (blocks, date, subsidy change), which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify data sources, update frequency, or error handling. It adds basic context but lacks details on reliability or limitations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists outputs without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given 0 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete for a simple read tool. It specifies the focus (Bitcoin halving) and outputs, but could enhance completeness by mentioning data sources or typical use cases, though the output schema likely covers return values.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate, but it could have noted the lack of inputs more explicitly. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids redundancy.

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 specific action ('Get a focused countdown') and the resource ('next Bitcoin halving'), with explicit outputs listed (blocks remaining, estimated date, subsidy change). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on halving countdown rather than analysis, validation, or data retrieval of other blockchain elements.

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 context by specifying 'next Bitcoin halving,' indicating this tool is for tracking halving events. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., for general blockchain info vs. halving-specific data) or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity in sibling tool differentiation.

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