getBlockTransactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, limits, return format, or error conditions. It does not contradict annotations, but it also adds no value beyond what annotations already 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?

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, which is appropriate for a simple getter tool. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and is front-loaded, though it gives minimal information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description does not mention return type or any special behaviors. For a straightforward getter, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 67%, meaning two of three parameters (authToken, blockNumber) have descriptions, but chainName lacks description. The tool description adds no parameter semantics; it only mentions 'block' which implicitly refers to blockNumber but does not clarify the other parameters. Since coverage is not high and description does not compensate, it falls below baseline.

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 'Get transactions in a block' clearly states the action (get transactions) and the scope (in a block), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like getTransactionsForAddress or getBulkTransactions. 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 implies when to use this tool (when you need transactions in a specific block) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides basic context without clear exclusions or guidance on sibling tools.

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