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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral detail by listing the possible transaction states, including landed status with block and success information, which helps the agent interpret outcomes.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the possible status values.

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 simple one-parameter status lookup, the description covers the possible status outcomes reasonably well. However, it omits parameter semantics for hash and does not explain polling behavior or how unknown or invalid hashes are handled.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter, hash, but its description coverage is 0%, so the schema does not explain the parameter's meaning beyond its name and regex pattern. The tool description does not mention the hash parameter or clarify that it is the transaction hash to look up.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a sent transaction and explains what is returned: its current status. It enumerates concrete states such as queued, posted, landed, and dropped, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like send_signed_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?

Usage is implied by the phrase "sent transaction," suggesting it should be called after sending a transaction. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, when not to use it, or whether polling is expected.

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