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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so no mutation warning is needed. The description adds beyond-annotation context by disclosing the exact cost ($0.005 USDC via x402) and clarifying that confirmations are current, which is a meaningful behavioral detail for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 cover purpose, success semantics, receipt retrieval, confirmations, and cost. Every clause earns its place, and the most important behavioral facts are front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only receipt lookup, the description gives enough high-level return semantics: success status, receipt, and confirmation count. It does not detail exact response fields, but the lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear purpose statement. It would benefit from a note on not-found behavior, but that is not a critical gap.

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 already fully documents the single tx_hash parameter, including its 0x-prefixed 64-character pattern. The description adds no new parameter semantics 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?

The description names a specific resource (receipt) and three concrete checks: success, receipt retrieval, and confirmations. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from base_transaction or base_transaction_context, but the receipt-specific wording makes the function reasonably distinct.

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 description implies the tool is appropriate when you need a Base transaction receipt and confirmation count, but it does not state when to prefer it over sibling tools or mention exclusions. The cost note is useful operational context but not usage routing guidance.

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