Validator detail with its stakers

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are returned 'largest first', the staker row shape is {address, amount HYPE}, and large validators can have thousands of stakers. This ordering, result-shape and scale information is beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the drill-down purpose and return shape before the pagination advice. Every clause carries information, though the field enumeration is slightly list-heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does most of it: summary fields, staker row format, ordering, and pagination strategy. The only gap is the concrete default for `limit` ('default per tool' is left opaque).

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 coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: `validator` accepts an address OR a name, with a concrete example ('Hyper Foundation 2'), and it explains the role of search (address substring filtering) alongside limit/offset for paging.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a single validator's summary plus its delegator list, and enumerates the summary fields (name, commission, total delegated, staker count, jailed). The phrase 'validator drill-down' distinguishes it from flowscan_staking_overview without opening either 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?

The 'Staking page validator drill-down' framing plus the warning that large validators have thousands of stakers, with the directive to 'use limit/offset or search', gives clear context for how to call it. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it supersedes (e.g. flowscan_staking_overview) or stating when-not to use it.

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