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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the whole burden. It does add real value: it discloses the reliance on the openchain signature DB for method decoding and that a price of $0.005 is charged, which is important for agent budgeting. It doesn't state read-only semantics, behavior on pending/unknown hashes, or error/rate-limit behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and its output breakdown, with the cost disclosure clipped onto the end. No 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?

No output schema, so the description must describe the return value — and it does, listing status, fee, decoded method/args, and ERC-20 transfers with symbols and human-readable amounts. Missing only edge-case coverage (pending or failed transactions, unknown signatures).

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?

There is one required parameter, 'hash', documented only by a regex pattern in the schema (0% description coverage). The description never says it must be a Polygon transaction hash, though the sentence context makes that inferable. Some compensation, but not full.

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?

Specific verb 'Explain' plus resource 'a Polygon transaction', and the description enumerates exactly what is returned (status, fee, decoded method + args, ERC-20 transfers). The chain name in the tool title and description cleanly separates it from the ~10 other *_tx_explain siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied by the chain prefix — an agent can infer this is the Polygon variant of the tx_explain family. There is no explicit when-to-use framing or a pointer to alternatives like calldata_decode for raw calldata decoding.

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