Staking overview & validator list

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the scale (~35 validators) and the conditional behavior that descriptions are returned only when includeDescription is set, which tells the agent how output volume varies.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its return fields, then filters, then a single illustrative example; every clause carries information. It is a long, dense sentence, but nothing is redundant with the schema beyond brief field naming.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating both the page-level aggregates and the per-validator record shape. Combined with the filtering/sorting guidance and the schema's 100% parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by tying parameters to intent: search filters by name/address, excludeJailed drops jailed validators, and the worked example combines sortBy, order and excludeJailed into a real query. It leaves limit/offset/fields unmentioned, but those are well covered by the 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?

It names the exact resource ('The /validators (Staking) page') and enumerates the concrete aggregates and per-validator fields returned (total HYPE staked, delegator count, commission bps, jailed flag), which lets an agent distinguish it from staking_events and validator_stakers without opening a schema.

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 supplies a concrete usage scenario ('sortBy=commission_bps, order=asc, excludeJailed=true finds the cheapest active validator') and describes the available filtering/sorting operations, giving clear context for when this tool applies. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as flowscan_validator_stakers, so no exclusions are stated.

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