List current validators (P-Chain)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (nodeID, stake, uptime, end time, delegation fee) and naming the exact RPC method. It does not disclose pagination details or response formatting, but given the annotations cover the critical behavioral aspects, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the complete purpose including the RPC method and returned fields. The second sentence gives the key usage distinction between subnet and primary network. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only, idempotent list operation with no output schema, the description covers the main functional aspects: scope selection and return contents. It does not mention pagination or that limit controls the number of results, but limit is already described in the schema. The method name and return fields provide enough context for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (limit lacks a description, others have one). The description adds meaning for subnet_id by explaining that omitting it means Primary Network and including it inspects an L1 set. It does not elaborate on limit, node_ids, or network beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is high and the description adds one useful clarification, it meets the baseline 3 without exceeding it.

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 (List), the resource (current validators), and two clear scopes (Primary Network or a specific Subnet/L1). It also names the underlying API method, which removes ambiguity. While it doesn't name a sibling tool explicitly, it clearly differentiates the Primary Network case from the subnet case, which is the main usage distinction.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to include subnet_id (to inspect an L1's validator set) and when to omit it (Primary Network). This is a clear usage condition. However, it does not compare against sibling tools like avax_pchain_get_stake_info or avax_data_list_l1_validators, so an agent might not know when to prefer this over those. Still, the subnet guidance is concrete and actionable.

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