get_ltc_blocks_recent

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. Description adds value by specifying behavior (newest-first, default/cap limits) and stating it is a mirror of BTC version, without contradicting annotations.

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?

Description is efficient, front-loading key details (READ-ONLY, block headers, newest-first) and adding valuable context without redundancy. Could be slightly more structured, but each sentence earns its place.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage context, and parameter rationale completely. It mentions internal dependencies and issue reference.

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 has 100% coverage with a description for 'limit'. The tool description adds context about the cap reasoning (bound HTTP fan-out) and default duration, which goes beyond 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?

The description clearly states it fetches recent Litecoin block headers, newest-first, with explicit default and cap. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is a mirror of get_btc_blocks_recent for LTC.

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 usage context by noting it is used internally by get_market_incident_status for specific computations. It implies read-only use, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons to other LTC block tools.

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