dero_get_block_header_by_topo_height

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the important runtime constraint that topoheight must not exceed the current topoheight and suggests calling dero_get_info first if unsure. It also includes an output shape, adding value beyond the structured 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?

The description is well organized with clear sections: purpose, when to call, input requirements, and output. Every sentence adds useful information, and the critical constraint is highlighted. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 read-only RPC call, this description is complete. The schema documents the parameter, annotations document the safety profile, and the description covers the dynamic input constraint and expected response shape. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and invoke it correctly.

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 schema only says 'Topological height' with static min/max bounds. The description adds the crucial dynamic constraint that the value must be no greater than the current topoheight, explains the conceptual difference between topoheight and height, and provides practical guidance for verifying the value. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 names a specific operation and resource: 'Get a block header by topological height.' It also clearly distinguishes the topoheight key from consensus block height, which separates this from header lookup by hash or height without ambiguity.

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 provides a 'When to call' condition: use it when you need a header keyed by topo position rather than chain height. It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, but the contextual contrast between topoheight and height gives clear guidance for selection.

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