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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: pending/unknown hashes return 404 uncharged, failed calls are free, and each call is charged so repeats are not free (consistent with idempotentHint=false). The line 'reads or computes only and changes nothing' merely restates readOnlyHint and earns no credit, but the billing and 404 behavior are genuinely useful.

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 what the tool returns and when to use it, then pricing. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the pricing sentence is long and the readOnly restatement is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so thoroughly by naming each receipt field. Input format, error case, and cost model are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is met by the schema, but the description still adds a worked example hash and the failure semantics for a bad/pending hash, which is meaningfully more than the schema's format note.

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 ('Transaction receipt on Gnosis') plus the underlying RPC (eth_getTransactionReceipt), and enumerates exactly what comes back: status, gas used, effective gas price, fee in xDAI, log count, contract created. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling gnosis_tx.

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 a concrete trigger ('use to confirm a payment or call went through') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('for sender, value and calldata use gnosis_tx'). No inference required.

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