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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the absence of side effects ('no wallet, signing, broadcast, custody, or execution action'), notes raw logs are excluded, and discloses auth/payment binding and retry semantics ('Retry the identical authorized arguments and credential'). This is a rich safety and reliability profile well beyond what structured fields provide.

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 and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the alternative-tool routing follows immediately. The trailing sentences about payment binding ('not mcp://') and retry are useful but mechanically worded and slightly break the flow, keeping it from a full 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values — and it does, listing status, block time, gas/fee fields, and decoded transfer events. Combined with the usage routing and auth/retry disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (network enum and transactionHash pattern) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'one Base or Ethereum transaction hash' adds only marginal framing over that, 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 (Inspect) and resource (one Base or Ethereum transaction hash) and enumerates exactly what is returned: success/revert status, block time, gas and fee fields, decoded ERC-20 Transfer events, and canonical USDC transfers. It explicitly differentiates itself from the settlement_proof sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use-elsewhere rule: 'Use settlement_proof instead when you must verify an exact canonical Base USDC recipient, amount, and optional payer claim.' That names both the alternative tool and the precise condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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