Upgrade readiness

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

The annotations already declare the operation is read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds real substance beyond them: the returned x/upgrade plan fields, voting-period proposals, per-node app and CometBFT versions, the named findings (upgrade_soon, upgrade_halt, version_skew), and the blind spot on binary staging. The prompt-injection warning about <untrusted> tags is a genuinely important behavior the agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose, then triggers, then return contents, then limits, and last the untrusted-data caveat. Every sentence adds information, and nothing is padding even though the description is long.

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?

Because the tool has no parameters, a rich return surface (including an output schema) and annotations covering safety, the description needs only to convey scope, triggers, outputs and limits. It covers all of these, including the untrusted-data handling, without leaving gaps.

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?

This tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The description correctly avoids inventing input concepts.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: it checks the chain's scheduled software upgrade and fleet readiness for it. It names exactly what is not covered (whether the new binary is staged on each host), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings such as fleet_overview or consensus_diagnosis.

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?

It gives three explicit triggers: questions about upcoming upgrades or hard forks, a chain that looks halted, and pre-maintenance checks. It also states a clear out-of-scope caveat, telling the agent to say so instead of assuming, which functions as guidance on when not to claim coverage.

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