Validator Registry: list validator metadata (mainnet/testnet)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the data source (validator-hub) and returned fields, but does not disclose other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and include relevant details (data source, filtering). No wasted 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?

With annotations covering safety and idempotency, and an output schema present (indicated but not shown), the description is sufficient for a simple read-only tool. It could mention that filtered vs unfiltered returns differ, but not essential.

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 coverage is 100% (only address parameter). The description merely restates the optional filter ability already present in the schema. No additional meaning is added.

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 'Fetch validator metadata (name, location, description, website, logo) for the current network' and specifies the data source 'validator-hub'. The title reinforces it's for mainnet/testnet, distinguishing it from siblings like getValidators or getValidatorBlockRewards.

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 mentions 'Supports optional filtering by address' and implies use for fetching registry metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like getValidators (which may differ in scope).

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