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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the status derivation rules (missing or incomplete receipt stays SUBMITTED, successful receipt becomes CONFIRMED, reverted becomes FAILED) and the caveat that finality is indexer-authoritative. That is meaningful behavioral context about what the result means, though it says nothing about polling cadence or how long the durable status URL remains valid.

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?

The main body is front-loaded with the purpose and status semantics, and every sentence carries information. The trailing 'Examples: Receipt-confirmed transaction' is a dangling, truncated fragment that adds nothing and slightly detracts from an otherwise tight structure.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and its status-transition rules cover the semantic gap well. However, for a five-parameter tool at 20% schema coverage, it leaves the optional recovery parameters completely unexplained, which is a real completeness gap for an agent deciding what to pass.

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 description coverage is only 20%: only chainId carries a description, while hash, operationId, submittedAt, and idempotencyKey are undocumented. The description does not compensate at all, never mentioning that the hash is the required key, what operationId is for, or why a caller would supply submittedAt or idempotencyKey.

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 states a specific verb and resource: recovering the chain-authoritative lifecycle of a wallet-submitted transaction. It implicitly separates itself from trade-intent tools by anchoring on a submitted transaction with a hash and receipt, but it never names a sibling such as kellian_get_trade_status to make the boundary explicit.

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 a clear triggering context: after a timeout, disconnect, or agent restart, which tells the agent exactly when this recovery tool is appropriate. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, e.g. that ongoing intent tracking belongs to kellian_get_trade_status or that economic finality must be read from the indexer.

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