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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral scope: what is returned (normalized status, block time, gas/fees, decoded transfers), what is excluded (raw logs), and what actions are NOT performed (wallet, signing, broadcast, custody, execution). This transparency goes beyond a simple 'inspect' and sets proper expectations for a read-only inspection 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?

The description is three sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by an alternative and exclusions. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or fluff, maintaining high information density in a compact structure.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the main returned categories, states exclusions, and gives a fallback for deeper verification. For a 2-parameter, 1-required tool, this is complete and leaves minimal ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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%, with both parameters described clearly. The description adds little beyond the schema for parameters; it restates the hash as 'mined' but doesn't add format or semantic details beyond what the schema's pattern and descriptions provide. According to the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Inspect one Base or Ethereum transaction hash' and enumerates specific outputs (normalized success/revert status, block time, gas and fee fields, decoded ERC-20 Transfer events, canonical USDC transfers). It distinguishes itself from `settlement_proof` by naming the alternative, making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance with a direct alternative: 'Use `settlement_proof` instead when you must verify an exact canonical Base USDC recipient, amount, and optional payer claim.' It also clarifies exclusions ('Raw logs are excluded') and non-actions ('performs no wallet, signing, broadcast, custody, or execution action'), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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