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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only states the data source and scope. It does not mention supported networks, expected input format, error behavior, rate limits, or whether any input format is required. The read-only nature is implied by 'detail' but not explicit.

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 concise and front-loaded with domain context, naming the coin types and source in a single phrase. It is not padded with redundant filler. A structured sentence clarifying that 'q' expects a transaction hash would have made it complete, but the current text is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is very simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so it does not need extensive return-value explanation. However, the description omits the single most important usage detail: that 'q' should contain a transaction hash. Without annotations, an agent has little context beyond the title to infer correct invocation.

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?

The schema provides no description for 'q', and coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. The title 'Txhash' and the phrase 'BTC/ETH transaction detail' strongly suggest that 'q' is a transaction hash, which is useful context not present in the schema. However, it never explicitly identifies the parameter or explains the expected hash format or chain.

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 identifies the resource as BTC/ETH transaction details and names Blockchair as the source, so an agent can tell this is a transaction-detail lookup rather than an address or block lookup. The title 'Txhash' reinforces that the query value is a transaction hash. It lacks an explicit verb, but 'detail' is enough to convey the operation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like btcaddr, ethaddr, or blockheight. The description does not say 'use this when you have a transaction hash' or provide exclusion criteria. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the title and sibling names.

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