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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant. The one genuinely additive disclosure is that every archived transaction was committed successfully, which spares the agent from checking status. It does not say what happens when the id is not found or whether lookups are cheap/idempotent.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the returned payload before the optional flag. Minor waste: 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation, and the long action list could be shortened without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the response fields, which is exactly the burden it must carry for a simple two-parameter lookup. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown id, existence of failed/absent transactions beyond the archive note).

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%, so both 'id' (64 hex chars) and 'raw' are fully documented with a pattern and default. The description only restates the raw option ('the signed transaction in hex') without adding format, size, or cost implications. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 names the resource (an Olympia transaction) and enumerates its contents — date, epoch/round, fee/fee payer, message, actions, balance changes — so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. The 'Olympia' qualifier plus sibling names like get_transaction and olympia_list_transactions_by_date make the scope inferable, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this rather than get_transaction (non-Olympia), olympia_get_account_transactions, or olympia_list_transactions_by_date. The only usage-adjacent statement is that all archived transactions were committed successfully, which is context rather than routing.

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