get_validator_proxy_mapping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only implies a read via 'Get' and says nothing about what the mapping table contains, whether the validator must be reachable, or what happens on an unresolvable device_id. For a zero-annotation tool this is thin behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 one-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no description of the mapping-table fields (e.g., public/private IP pairs), the agent cannot anticipate the return shape. A sentence on the returned columns would complete it.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Validator (vBond) system-ip'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds only the vBond clarification and no format examples or constraints, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') plus a precise resource ('Validator (vBond) NAT/proxy mapping table'), and the vBond parenthetical disambiguates the device type. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_validator_connections or get_validator_summary, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other get_validator_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and resource.

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