List L1 validators (Data API)

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: scope ('post-Etna ACP-77') and the returned fields (weight, balance, remaining balance owner). It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but those are secondary given the annotation coverage.

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, dense sentence with no filler. Purpose, scope, filters, and output fields are all front-loaded, making it trivially quick for an agent to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return shape; it lists three output fields but omits pagination behavior, ordering, and other likely list fields. The page_size parameter is present in the schema but never explained, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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 must explain parameters. It mentions subnet_id and node_id as filters but says nothing about network or page_size semantics. The network enum and page_size bounds exist in the schema, but their meaning and behavior are not clarified, leaving half the parameters under-documented.

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 and resource: 'List sovereign L1 validators (post-Etna ACP-77) from the Data API'. It also mentions optional filters by subnet or node ID and the output fields, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like avax_pchain_get_validators.

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 phrase 'from the Data API' and 'post-Etna ACP-77' imply when this tool is appropriate, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and siblings.

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