koios_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get detailed information') and does not disclose anything about response format, error handling, rate limits, or that it is a read-only safe operation. The description is a restatement of purpose rather than a disclosure of behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff 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?

The description is minimally viable: it clearly states the purpose and the schema fully documents parameters. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what 'detailed information' includes or how to interpret the response. Given the simplicity of the tool and rich schema, this is adequate but leaves gaps in expectations about return values.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the main parameter `_block_hashes`, which is also described in the schema. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 applies here since the schema handles 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 specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific blocks') with the input method ('by their hashes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like koios_blocks or koios_block_txs. This is a specific verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 such as koios_blocks, koios_block_txs, or koios_block_tx_cbor. There is no mention of exclusion criteria or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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