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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining how to interpret packet completeness (status='executed' and dst_tx_hash populated). This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The first defines what the tool does; the second explains the use case and success criteria. No redundant or vague text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only list, three parameters with thorough schema descriptions, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and result interpretation. It could mention potential large result sets or pagination, but that is not essential for this low-complexity tool.

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%, with each parameter (chainId, txHash, format) already fully described in terms of meaning and defaults. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every cross-chain packet emitted by a given source transaction'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sodax_relay_get_packet (which likely targets a single packet) and other get_ tools. The scope is explicit and actionable.

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?

Provides explicit use-case guidance: 'Use this to track relay status' and defines a clear completion criterion. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the focused wording and sibling structure imply this tool is for packet enumeration while sodax_relay_get_packet handles single-packet lookups.

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