Fleet overview

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: full-fleet scope, the 50-block signing window, and the notable performance trait of being slower than single-purpose tools on large fleets. The return-shape sentence is partly redundant with the output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the sweep's purpose, then usage, then return shape, then the cost caveat - a sensible progression with no filler. The return-format sentence retreads ground already covered by the output schema, which is the only waste.

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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description needs only to position the tool and set expectations. It does both: it routes agents here first for broad checks and warns about latency on large fleets.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the sweep is unscoped and applies to all configured nodes rather than allowing filtering.

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 action (one-call health sweep) over a specific resource (every configured node and validator) and enumerates the dimensions checked: sync, peers, signing liveness over 50 blocks, jail risk, and scheduled upgrade. It is clearly distinguishable from the single-purpose siblings it names.

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?

Explicitly says to use it first for broad questions like "is everything ok?" or a daily check, then names node_status, peer_health and validator_health as the drill-down alternatives. It also flags the tradeoff (slower than single-purpose tools on large fleets), which implicitly tells the agent when not to use it.

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