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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false but say nothing about cost, which the description supplies: '$0.001 in USDC on Base per successful call, paid with x402' — a material behavioral fact (payment-gated, charged only on success). It also discloses the return contents. It does not cover pending/not-found transaction behavior, which for a receipt lookup is a notable omission.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and followed by the use case and the pricing note. The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place; no filler.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden and adds the pricing model. It stops short of explaining failure modes (reverted vs pending vs unknown hash) or how it differs from arb_tx, which an agent choosing among ~150 siblings would benefit from.

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 there is a single 'hash' parameter documented as '0x transaction hash'. The description adds no format, chain-prefix, or validation nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Receipt of a Arbitrum One transaction') and enumerates exactly what the receipt contains: status, gas used, effective gas price, fee in ETH, log count, and created contract. This distinguishes it from arb_tx (full transaction payload) and from the base_/eth_/op_ receipt siblings by naming the chain.

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?

'Use to confirm a payment or call went through' gives a clear triggering scenario. However, it never routes the agent between this and its near-identical siblings (arb_tx, base_receipt, eth_receipt) nor states exclusions, so the when-not guidance is absent.

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