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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the polling cadence, the auto-termination condition (confirmed or reverted), the state-reuse mechanism, and the exact cost ($0.003 USDC on Base via x402). It omits auth/payment mechanics and timeout behavior, keeping it just below a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the operational and cost details. No filler.

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 3-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key unknowns an agent needs: polling loop, returned state hash, termination condition, and pricing. It is slightly thin on parameter-level detail, but overall adequate.

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 0% for three parameters, so the description must compensate. It implies the previous_state_hash parameter via 'reusing the returned next request/state', but never mentions tx_hash or the network enum, leaving real gaps.

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+resource ('Transaction confirmation watch') plus the target audience ('autonomous agents'), which cleanly separates it from the one-shot sibling chain-transaction-status. An agent can identify the function without opening the 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 concrete operating guidance: poll ~every 15s while pending, reuse the returned next request/state, stop once confirmed or reverted. It does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g. chain-transaction-status for a single check) or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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