Get Witnesses

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds non-obvious behavior: results are cached for 10 minutes per network+hub unless update=true, and the server serves both networks at once. There is no contradiction with the 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by cache behavior and network instructions. Each sentence earns its place and no information is redundant.

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 simple, read-only tool with no required parameters and both optional parameters explained, the description is complete. It covers purpose, network selection, default behavior, caching, and a user-confirmation rule. No output schema is present, but 'Returns witnesses' sufficiently states the return intent.

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 description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: network is given an enum context plus the default behavior, and update is explained as a cache-bypass switch. Both parameters gain practical meaning beyond the raw 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 opening states 'Raw hub read. Returns witnesses for the selected network,' naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by framing it as a direct, unprocessed hub read.

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 clear operational guidance: choose 'mainnet' or 'testnet', explains the mainnet default, and instructs the agent to confirm the network with the user when it is not explicit. It does not, however, mention alternative sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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