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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well by enumerating the returned statuses, confirmations, parties, value, fee, method, transfers, approvals, unlimited-approval flag, and Solana balance changes. It omits error/not-found behavior and permission or rate-limit context, which keeps it below 5.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then lists return details compactly. Despite being a single dense sentence, every clause adds useful information for interpreting the result.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return contents, and it does so thoroughly for a simple two-parameter lookup: status, confirmations, parties, value, fee, method, token/NFT transfers, approvals, and Solana account balance changes. Nothing critical is missing for this tool's complexity.

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%, so both hash and chain are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema for these parameters; its Solana note concerns return behavior rather than parameter meaning.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Look up a transaction by hash." That clearly separates it from all sibling tools, which handle wallets, tokens, email, websites, or pages, and it immediately identifies the required hash lookup.

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?

It implies use when a transaction hash is available, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, exclusions, or direct comparison with siblings such as check_wallet or check_token. An agent must infer the calling context from the purpose alone.

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