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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the paid cost ($0.008) and the shape of the result, but says nothing about failure behavior for pending, dropped, or nonexistent hashes, which is the main behavioral unknown for a receipt lookup.

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?

Two short sentences, the cost and purpose front-loaded, followed by the return contents. Nothing extraneous.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, purpose, and the meaningful return fields. The only gap is error behavior for non-confirmed transactions.

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 hash parameter is fully documented as a 0x-prefixed 64-hex string, so the schema does the work. The description adds no constraints or format notes beyond it, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 ("Get the receipt of a confirmed transaction") and enumerates the returned fields (status, gas used, logs, contract address), which makes it easy to separate from chain_tx (which submits a transaction) in the sibling list.

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?

The word "confirmed" implies the transaction must already be mined, which hints at when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on what to do for pending or unknown hashes and no named alternative.

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