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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description is free to add the behavioral facts it does: results are network-wide, only committed transactions, and ordered newest first. It doesn't mention the 50-item cap or pagination, which are minor gaps against an annotated read tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core behavior (what you get, in what order) is front-loaded before the pointer to the sibling tool.

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 exists, so the description carries some of the return-shape burden; it says transactions are committed and newest-first but not what fields a transaction record contains. For a simple two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, this is close to complete.

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% – both network (enum, default mainnet) and limit (1-50, default 10) are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'network-wide' phrase aligns with the network parameter but adds no syntax or bounds beyond the schema, so the 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+resource (recent transactions), plus scope (network-wide), ordering (newest first), and status (committed). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling get_transaction, which requires an intent hash.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_transaction with an intent hash to get the full breakdown of one of these results. That is a named alternative plus the condition that selects it.

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