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

Beyond the annotations it discloses cost per call, the free tier, that failed calls are free, that 404/uncharged results occur for pending or unknown hashes, and that repeats are not free (explaining the non-idempotent billing model). It also reaffirms a read-only, no-side-effect profile that is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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 return fields, then routing, then input format and billing. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the charging model is stated twice ('Price $0.01/call...' and 'each call is charged, so repeats are not free'), which is mild redundancy.

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?

Single-parameter read tool with no output schema; the description compensates by enumerating returned fields, documenting the error/pending path, and stating the pricing model. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret a 404.

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 the schema already documents the 0x-prefixed 64-hex hash format, so the description is not required to explain the parameter. It still adds value with a concrete example hash and the semantic behavior of pending/unknown inputs (404).

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 (retrieve the transaction receipt on Linea) and enumerates exactly what it returns: status, gas used, effective gas price, fee in ETH, log count, created contract. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling linea_tx by naming what that tool covers instead (sender, value, calldata).

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?

Explicit use case ('confirm a payment or call went through') paired with an explicit alternative and its selection condition ('for sender, value and calldata use linea_tx'). It also states the negative case: a pending or unknown hash returns 404, uncharged.

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