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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. 'Look up' signals a read-only query and the field list indicates the response contents, but there is no mention of behavior for missing transactions, error cases, or any limitations.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element, from the lookup verb to the comma-separated field list, earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description is largely complete: it names the target chain, the key parameter, and the output fields in absence of an output schema. Only error/not-found behavior is left unspecified.

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 hash parameter is already well-described in the input schema. The description adds little beyond restating that the lookup is by hash, so the moderate baseline is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Look up' and the resource 'a Base transaction by hash,' then lists the specific fields returned (status, from, to, value, block, gas used). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools by name.

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 implied: the agent can infer this tool should be used when a Base transaction needs to be inspected by hash. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools or 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.