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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes status, amounts, and details, which is useful but does not disclose additional behaviors like response format defaults or error cases.

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 a single, concise sentence that communicates the tool's core function without unnecessary words. All information is front-loaded and earns its place.

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 simple lookup tool with high schema coverage and safe-read annotations, the description provides enough context to select and invoke correctly. It does not detail the exact return structure, but the mention of status, amounts, and details gives a reasonable expectation.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (txHash with example, format with enum and default). The description aligns with the schema but does not add further meaning beyond what is already provided, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool looks up a specific transaction by hash to see status, amounts, and details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sodax_get_user_transactions by emphasizing a single transaction lookup via hash.

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 phrase 'a specific transaction by its hash' provides clear context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is sufficient for a straightforward lookup tool.

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