Get Quai Block

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

Annotations already establish read-only behavior, and the description adds non-obvious context: block numbers are not globally unique across Prime/Region/Zone, so the shard is mandatory. It also clarifies accepted identifier formats and the address-to-zone precondition. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core capability and the non-obvious shard prerequisite are front-loaded, and the trailing resolve_zone pointer is directly relevant to correct invocation.

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 complex chain hierarchy and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational knowledge: how to specify the chain, what identifiers are accepted, and the address-to-zone precondition. It does not describe the response shape, but that is not required to select or invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete chain examples (cyprus1, cyprus, prime), explaining the accepted block identifier forms, and stressing that shard disambiguates the block lookup beyond what the enum alone conveys.

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?

Description begins with 'Fetch a block from a specific Quai Network chain' — a precise verb and resource. It then unpacks the hierarchy requirement so an agent won't confuse block lookup with transaction lookup, and the shard-qualification warning distinguishes its invocation semantics from ordinary single-chain block fetchers.

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?

It explains when the tool is the right call: fetching a block by number, hash, or tag on a particular shard. It also gives a concrete routing rule — if you only have an address, call resolve_zone first. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it versus get_transaction, but the read-context is clear.

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