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

Goes well past the annotations (which already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive) by disclosing billing semantics: not_found is charged like any answer, malformed answers are 5xx and not charged, price USD 0.002, 10 free reads per IP per UTC day, and typical 0.3-2 s latency. It also warns that returned page text and on-chain strings are untrusted data.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and alternatives, then error/billing/safety notes in compact sentences. Slightly redundant in repeating the 'chainpeek:' prefix from the title and the chain names already in the enum, but no sentence is wasted.

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 no explanation; the description still supplies everything else an agent needs — routing to siblings, failure modes, cost/free-tier limits, latency, and a prompt-injection caution — for a two-parameter read call.

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 100% and both parameters (hash pattern/length, chain enum) are fully documented in the schema, so this is the baseline case. The description only restates the supported chain names, adding no format or semantic detail beyond the enum.

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 and resource ('read a transaction and its receipt') and scopes it to three named chains. It explicitly names the two nearest siblings, get_transaction_receipt and decode_tx_logs, so an agent can differentiate without opening any other 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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use get_transaction_receipt for the receipt alone and decode_tx_logs for decoded events. It also states when the call fails (unknown hash -> not_found, inconsistent node answer -> 5xx), which is genuine when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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