Next slot leaders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only query by describing the return data, but it doesn't explicitly state that it makes an RPC call, its dependencies, or any potential errors. The 'from the current slot' phrase adds useful context about the data source.

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 sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and use case, with no redundant words.

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 sufficient for a simple read-only tool: it states what is returned (slot leaders), the reference point (current slot), and the intended use case. It doesn't describe return format or error behavior, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this acceptable.

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 description does not mention any parameters. The schema covers url (with a description) but lacks a description for count, relying only on constraints. Since the description adds no parameter-level information, it does not compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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 tool returns the next N slot leaders (validator identities) from the current slot, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rpc_health or priority_fee_estimate. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', making it slightly less direct.

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 a clear use case ('for timing transaction submission'), indicating when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is strong enough to guide selection among the sibling tools.

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