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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the state machine (SUBMITTED / CONFIRMED / FAILED), that incomplete receipts stay pending, that a durable status URL is returned, and the important caveat that economic finality is indexer-authoritative. It does not discuss rate limits or polling cadence, which is the main remaining gap for a status-recovery 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?

The state-mapping and finality sentences are dense and earn their place, and the recovery context is front-loaded. However, the trailing 'Examples: Receipt-confirmed transaction' is a truncated fragment that adds no usable information and reads as an editing artifact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the lifecycle semantics are well covered. But for a 5-parameter tool at 20% schema coverage, the description leaves four undocumented parameters — notably the idempotency and operation-tracking fields — which an agent cannot reason about from either source.

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 description coverage is only 20% — only chainId is documented, and the description never mentions hash, operationId, submittedAt, or idempotencyKey. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but it explains no parameter meaning, format, or role (e.g. whether idempotencyKey/operationId are for deduplicating retries during recovery). This is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: recovering the chain-authoritative lifecycle of a wallet-submitted transaction. That is far more precise than the title alone and clearly separates it from preparation/execution siblings. It never names the closest siblings (problee_get_trade_status, problee_get_trade_intent), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

It gives concrete triggering conditions: after a timeout, disconnect, or agent restart. That is real when-to-use guidance rather than an implied purpose. It stops short of exclusions or an explicit 'use X instead when...' clause against the status/getter siblings.

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