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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral output details: per-transaction confirmation status, block hash, decoded JSON option, and the `{ txs, txs_as_hex }` response shape. No contradiction with annotations; a bit more on error/not-found behavior would push it higher.

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 purpose, then organized into When to call, Input Requirements, and Output sections. Each sentence contributes either selection guidance, parameter semantics, or return-value context without padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the output shape and per-tx fields. It also covers both parameters, the optional decode behavior, and the companion tool relationship, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stressing txs_hashes MUST be a non-empty array of 64-char hex strings and by explaining decode_as_json should be set to 1 (any non-zero) to receive JSON-decoded fields instead of raw blobs.

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?

Description opens with 'Fetch one or more transactions by hash via DERO.GetTransaction,' a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling lookup tools by emphasizing hash-based transaction tracing and one-or-more batch capability.

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?

Explicit 'When to call: when tracing a tx by hash' gives clear use context, and it names companion tool dero_get_sc for contract-invoking transactions. It also recommends dero_docs_search for interpreting fields, providing actionable guidance beyond the schema.

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