dero_get_block

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds important behavioral context: the strict exactly-one input constraint and the INVALID_INPUT error condition, plus the exact output shape with topo position. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/pattern info.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, a 'When to call' section, a labeled critical input section, and an output summary. Every sentence is functional and no filler exists. The most important usage rule is prominently highlighted.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the purpose, invocation conditions, required input combination, parameter constraints, and output contents. It even suggests a docs-search path for deeper field semantics. There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates the returned block components.

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 the schema already documents both params and the hash pattern. The description adds the critical rule that exactly one of hash or height must be supplied and states the height must be non-negative, which is already in the schema but reinforced. It does not add new param-level meaning beyond the exclusive-or requirement.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('full block ... by height OR hash'), and names the RPC method (DERO.GetBlock). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like dero_get_block_header_by_hash by specifying that the full block includes header, miner_tx, transactions, and topo position.

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 explicitly says when to call it ('when investigating a specific block or verifying a transaction's inclusion') and tells the agent to call dero_get_height first if no height is known. It does not explicitly exclude alternative sibling block-header tools, but the 'full block' scope and output field list imply when the lighter header tools should be used instead.

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