Node sync status

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it enumerates what each node record contains (level, findings with codes, height, catching_up, blocks behind fleet max, versions, consensus address/voting power). It also flags a security-relevant trait the annotations never express: monikers and versions are wrapped in <untrusted> tags and must be treated as data, not instructions.

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?

Purpose and the recommended-first-use case are front-loaded, then the return payload, then exclusions, then the untrusted-data caveat. The per-node field list is long but it is genuinely informative rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the shape of the return value, names the sibling alternatives, and covers the untrusted-content handling. Nothing an agent needs in order to select and call this tool correctly is missing.

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% and the single `node` parameter already documents that omitting it checks every configured node. The description only reinforces the fleet-wide framing implicitly, so it adds little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("check whether CometBFT nodes are synced and following the chain head") and immediately separates itself from siblings by naming what it does not cover. An agent can distinguish it from peer_health and validator_health without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit prioritization ("Use it first when asked if a node or the fleet is healthy, or when a validator may be falling behind") and explicit exclusions routing to peer_health and validator_health. Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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