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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context, which it does. It adds the per-call cost ($0.001 USDC), data provenance ('straight from the node'), and byte-identical equivalence to a REST endpoint. No contradiction exists between the description and the annotations.

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 one dense, run-on paragraph that packs in output format, use case, cost, chain list, and a full example URL. Some information, like the chain list and endpoint example, duplicates what the schema or other parts of the description already convey. It is compact rather than cleanly structured or scannable.

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, read-only, two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the use condition, cost, supported chains, and a worked example. It does not explicitly describe behavior for invalid hashes or empty logs, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents both required parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a byte-identical example URL with concrete chain=base and hash=0x... values, reinforcing the exact format expected. This is useful but still supplemental to a schema that is already complete.

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 that the tool decodes a receipt's logs into address, topic0, indexed values, and data size, so an agent can tell it is an event-decoding tool for a single transaction. It also distinguishes itself as the 'only honest answer when eth_getLogs by transaction hash is refused,' though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative. The verb is implied ('decoded to') rather than explicit like 'returns' or 'gets,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 gives a concrete use case: this is the tool to call when eth_getLogs by transaction hash is refused. It also mentions the exact supported chains and per-call cost, which are practical prerequisites. However, it does not name alternative tools such as chain_receipt or chain_logs, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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