Network upgrade timeline (Banff → Helicon)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context about the query mechanism (omitting vs passing a value) and the structured nature of the return. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful additional operational detail, though it omits edge-case behavior like invalid inputs or result limits.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key resource and fields, then provides query instructions and sibling references. Every segment earns its place with concrete examples; there is no redundancy or unnecessary filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (structured history with listed fields), how to tailor the query, and where to find complementary details (siblings). Given the low complexity and annotation coverage, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and a single undocumented parameter, the description fully compensates by specifying accepted formats and examples (e.g., 'Helicon', 'v1.14.0', 'ACP-194') and the default behavior when omitted. This gives the agent precise, actionable semantics for the `query` parameter, exceeding the bare 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 clearly states the tool returns a structured history of Avalanche Primary Network upgrades, listing specific fields (name, version, dates, status, chains, ACPs, impact, docs). It also differentiates from siblings by naming paired tools (avax_acp_lookup, avax_get_doc) and explicitly explains how to query by name, version, or ACP. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: omit `query` for the full timeline, or pass an upgrade name, version, or ACP number for a single entry. It also recommends pairing with related tools for full detail, guiding the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No inference is required.

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