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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by enumerating the five possible status outcomes (not_found_or_pending through delivered), which tells the agent what states to expect and how to interpret results. It does not cover timing/reorg caveats or what the caller should do per state, so not a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with the read-only guarantee and the input front-loaded before the outcome list. It is long but every clause carries information; the enum parenthetical is the only slightly heavy element.

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 takes on the burden of describing return values, and it does so by listing all status states explicitly. For a single-parameter read-only lookup, that is 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% and the single tx_hash parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description restates 'Base transaction hash' but adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already gives. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 (reads/reports), the resource (purchase upgrade status), the required input (Base transaction hash), and the exact outcome space. An agent can distinguish this from the other geode_upgrade_* siblings (build, packs, prepare) without opening the schema.

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?

The description implies usage ('given the Base transaction hash of a purchase') which is enough to know the precondition, but it never explicitly routes the agent versus geode_upgrade_prepare, geode_upgrade_build, or geode_upgrade_packs. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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