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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable non-obvious semantics: 'A receipt acknowledges the transaction, not ownership' and 'Never retry... pending.' These clarify potential misconceptions and align with the idempotent/read-only hints 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, read-only nature, receipt caveat, and retry warning. No filler, front-loaded with the main action. This is an ideal length for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects; the description covers purpose, read-only, receipt meaning, and the retry pitfall. It could explicitly state what 'pending' means or what the return values look like, but given the tool's low complexity and rich annotations, the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the semantics. It identifies the parameter as a 'public transaction hash' and ties it to the verification purpose, but it does not elaborate on format or behavior beyond the schema's own pattern constraint. For a single simple parameter this is adequate but not rich.

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 begins with a clear, specific action: 'Check a public transaction hash for a successful hosting contribution.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enjoy_amenity and list_amenities, none of which involve verification. The explicit mention of 'hosting contribution' and 'read-only' removes ambiguity.

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 when to use it—when needing to verify a contribution—and adds a critical exclusion: 'Never retry a payment just because verification is pending.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the caution about retries provides practical usage context that goes beyond a simple purpose statement.

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