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 ~15s polling cadence, the termination conditions (confirmed or reverted), the state-reuse protocol, and the $0.003 USDC payment via x402. It omits maximum polling duration/timeout behavior and what happens if the tx hash is unknown, so it falls short of exhaustive.

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 behavior and followed by the cost. Every clause carries information; 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should convey the return shape, and it only gestures at 'returned next-check state' without describing the status fields. Combined with the undocumented network parameter, an agent has meaningful gaps, though the cost and polling model are covered.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It explains the purpose of previous_state_hash ('reusing returned next-check state') but says nothing about the network enum (base/ethereum) or the tx_hash format, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 (poll) on a specific resource (a transaction) with the mechanism and termination condition spelled out. It implicitly distinguishes itself from one-shot siblings like chain-transaction-status and transaction_status by describing continuous polling.

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 implies the usage context (when you need to wait for confirmation rather than check once), but never explicitly says 'use this instead of repeatedly calling transaction_status' or states when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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