check_amendment_blocked

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it reads server_info, uses a fixed endpoint (no arbitrary URLs), and performs 1 RPC read. This is sufficient transparency for a simple read operation, though it could explicitly state it is safe and non-destructive.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds necessary context about fixed endpoint and RPC count. Every phrase 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?

Given an output schema exists, return value explanation is not needed. The description covers the main output (amendment blocked, build version, ledger) and parameter. It is complete for a simple read tool with no annotations, though it could list the exact output fields for extra clarity.

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%. The description mentions 'this network' and 'network's fixed endpoint', implying the parameter selects the network, but does not explicitly describe the 'network' parameter or its enum values. While the parameter is simple, the description adds little beyond the schema's own definition.

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 it reports whether the configured RPC node is amendment blocked, along with build version and validated ledger. It specifies the verb 'report', the resource 'RPC node', and distinct condition 'amendment blocked'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xahau_server_info or get_amendment_status.

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 implies this tool is used to check if the node is too old to process transactions, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like xahau_server_info or get_amendment_status. It mentions it reads server_info and uses a fixed endpoint, which gives context but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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