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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what data is included but does not disclose operational behavior such as behavior for unknown txids, confirmation semantics, or how name operations are represented.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaningful content about the transaction fields returned, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter read tool with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It could mention sibling distinctions or edge-case behavior, but those gaps are minor given the low complexity and existing structured metadata.

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 input schema already fully documents txid as a 64-character hexadecimal string, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 the resource as a transaction and enumerates its contents (confirmations, block time, outputs, name operations), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_block or get_address. It lacks an explicit verb in the description itself, but the title 'Get a transaction' supplies the action.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_block or get_name_history. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated, so an agent must infer usage solely from the resource type.

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