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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it includes specific fields like bounded calldata and normalized event logs, and notes the fee is included 'when available', indicating conditional behavior. This goes beyond merely restating annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler. Each clause adds value: the first defines the core action and scope, the second lists key return fields and conditional behavior. Excellent structure for quick comprehension.

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 description covers the purpose, scope, and key output details, and the output schema exists to define return structure. It lacks error behavior or prerequisites, but for a simple read tool with full annotations and an output schema, it is sufficiently complete to guide an agent.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (tx_hash format, chain_id with Ethereum/Base values). The description provides no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it rests at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('details and receipt for an Ethereum or Base transaction by hash'), and enumerates distinctive outputs (bounded calldata, normalized event logs, transaction index, effective gas price). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like decode_transaction.

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 (when you have a transaction hash and need details/receipt) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The sibling decode_transaction could benefit from a note, but the context is not misleading.

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