get_block

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

The annotations already establish this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful operational context beyond that: the tool requires a backend, and the network parameter can override the server's network. These are behavioral details not present in the structured metadata.

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 a short prerequisite and clear per-parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant content.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameter semantics, and a key prerequisite. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that. The only minor gap is that 'backend' is not clarified further, though this may be a system-level concern.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains that 'block' can be a block hash or a height number, and that 'network' overrides the server network. This is significant added value beyond the bare schema types.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch a block header') and the two accepted identifiers ('by hash or height'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_block_height (which likely returns the current height) and get_transaction. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 only a vague prerequisite ('Needs a backend') and no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention get_block_height or get_transaction, which are the natural siblings to compare against. An agent would have to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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