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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantic detail: status meanings, basis_state semantics, null handling for unknown fields, and the fact that per-answer reward is not published.

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 front-loaded with its core purpose and packs field semantics efficiently into one paragraph. It is dense but not bloated; the parenthetical status and basis_state explanations are justified by the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return fields and does so thoroughly: statuses, settlement close, address credit, basis_state, and reward publication caveat are all covered. An agent can interpret the response without additional documentation.

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%, so the schema already documents hash, address, and limit. The description restates that hash returns one answer while address returns recent answers, but adds no significant parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies a getter for an answer receipt and enumerates the fields and statuses it returns. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the purpose is unmistakable from the verb-resource pairing and field list.

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?

It states exactly how to invoke the tool: pass a hash for one answer or an address for recent answers, and frames the use case as answering 'what happened to my answer'. It does not name when not to use it or direct to sibling tools, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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