search_op_returns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a placeholder that returns an error indicating the feature requires direct block access, which is crucial behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling beyond this, leaving gaps for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The first sentence is clear, but the note about placeholder status, while important, might be better placed later. The parameter and return sections are helpful but could be more integrated. Overall, it's functional but not perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, placeholder status, parameters, and return value. However, for a tool that scans blocks and returns transactions, more details on output format, error cases, or implementation status would enhance completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose: 'start_height' as the starting block height, 'end_height' as optional ending block height with default behavior, and 'limit' as maximum results with a default. This goes beyond the schema's basic types and titles, though it could be more detailed on constraints.

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's purpose: 'Scan blocks for OP_RETURN transactions.' It specifies both the verb ('scan') and the resource ('blocks for OP_RETURN transactions'), making the function evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'decode_op_return' or 'encode_op_return', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that it's a placeholder requiring additional implementation, but this doesn't help an agent decide between this and sibling tools like 'decode_op_return' or 'get_transaction'. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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