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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: pending/unknown hash returns 404 uncharged, reads only and changes nothing, $0.01/call with first 25 free and failed calls free, and repeats are not free (explaining idempotentHint=false). This is exactly the contextual layer annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose and return fields are front-loaded, then usage routing, then input/error behavior, then pricing. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the pricing tail is slightly long for the space it occupies relative to the retrieval task.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents, input format, failure mode, cost, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents the hash format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an error-semantics rule (pending/unknown hash → 404, uncharged) and a concrete example hash, which meaningfully extend beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Transaction receipt on Berachain') and enumerates the returned fields (status, gas used, effective gas price, fee in BERA, log count, contract created), tying it to eth_getTransactionReceipt. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling bera_tx by delegating sender/value/calldata to that tool.

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 an explicit use case ('confirm a payment or call went through') and names the alternative, bera_tx, with the exact condition that selects it (sender, value, calldata). The when-not is unambiguous.

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