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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose a real behavioral trait: the 90-credit cost per call and that actual credits appear in response headers. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, and return format, which a lookup tool with no annotations should ideally cover.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by networks and credit cost. The boilerplate credits disclaimer is slightly redundant with the preceding line but is short and not disruptive.

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 read lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, networks, and cost, but it does not hint at what the response contains or any failure modes. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the result shape.

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 all three parameters (context, network, transactionHash) are already documented in the schema with the same meaning the description restates. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 transaction details') plus the identifier ('by transaction hash (signature)'). The 'Solana' qualifier and network list distinguish it from the EVM/Kaspa/UTXO/XRP siblings, though the differentiation comes mostly from the name rather than explicit description text.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. address_history or address_latest). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone. Only implied usage is present.

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