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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the live nature of the data, the specific fields returned, and the $0.008 USDC cost via x402. However, it does not mention behavior for a nonexistent or unconfirmed transaction, response structure, or any rate limiting.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the cost. Every word adds information and there is no redundancy.

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 lookup tool, the description is mostly functional: it names the resource, the parameter, the returned data, and the cost. But with no output schema and no annotations, missing details like not-found behavior and response formatting leave notable gaps.

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 description only repeats 'by hash' and does not add meaning beyond the schema's tx_hash property and pattern. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it fails to explain the hash format or provide any additional context.

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 states the action ('Return'), the resource ('live Base transaction'), and the lookup method ('by hash'), and lists the returned fields (sender, recipient, value, calldata). It is specific enough to be understood, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closely related base_receipt sibling.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over base_receipt or other base_* siblings. The description implies a hash lookup but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions.

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