get_block_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., invalid block numbers), performance aspects (e.g., latency), or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 of blockchain tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., block details, transactions), potential errors, or how it fits into the broader context of sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'blockNumber' clearly documented as 'The block number to retrieve.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format details or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Get information') and resource ('about a specific block'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_blockchain_info' or 'get_transaction_history', which might also retrieve block-related information, so it doesn't achieve full distinction.

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. With siblings like 'get_blockchain_info' (likely broader blockchain data) and 'get_transaction_history' (transaction-focused), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific block retrieval tool.

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