Get network status

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnly and openWorld, so safety is established. The description adds value by detailing exactly what health metrics are checked (node readiness, consensus, chain id, block heights, versions), giving the agent a concrete expectation of behavior beyond 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?

Single sentence, direct and information-dense. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists specific health aspects with no filler or redundancy.

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 no-parameter read-only status check, the description covers the essential scope (what health includes). It doesn't detail the exact output structure, but given the simplicity and the absence of parameters, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and the baseline of 4 applies since no parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource ('the configured Thru RPC endpoint') followed by concrete sub-aspects (node readiness, consensus state, chain id, block heights, versions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on accounts, transactions, or events.

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 context of use is clear: call this when you need endpoint health or status information. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the scope is well-defined enough that an agent can infer when it's appropriate.

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