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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot convey: the x402 pricing model ($0.01/call, first 25 free, failed calls free), the 404-uncharged behavior for pending/unknown hashes, and the explicit warning that repeats are not free. This is exactly the extra context the dimension rewards.

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 usage routing, then the input format and example, then pricing. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the long literal example hash is the only slightly bulky element, though it usefully disambiguates format.

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, but the description enumerates the returned fields well enough that an agent knows what to expect. Combined with the cost and error (404 pending) semantics, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 single parameter is fully documented in-schema, so the baseline applies. The description still adds value by supplying a concrete example hash, which reduces format errors, though it does not add interpretation beyond the schema's format statement.

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 the specific verb+resource ('transaction receipt') and enumerates the exact fields returned: status, gas used, effective gas price, fee in SEI, log count, contract created. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling sei_tx by naming what sei_tx covers instead.

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 explicit when-to-use ('confirm a payment or call went through') and names the alternative routing rule ('for sender, value and calldata use sei_tx'). An agent can choose between the two without opening either schema.

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