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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the rich output (decoded calldata, status, gas) and appropriate use contexts, with no contradictions to 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?

Description is highly concise: two focused sentences front-loaded with common query patterns, then explicit parameter requirements and use cases. Every phrase serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two required scalar parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, input requirements, and typical use cases. It omits error handling or rate limits, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward look-up tool.

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. It mentions the two parameters ('chain + tx_hash') but does not define their format or allowed values (e.g., chain ID or name, hash length). The examples in the schema provide some guidance, but the description itself adds minimal semantics beyond naming the parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves full transaction details for a given hash, listing specific fields (from, to, value, method, status, gas, decoded calldata) and use cases (forensic analysis, MEV inspection, contract-call breakdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_address or get_block.

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?

Description provides explicit usage scenarios and required parameters ('Pass chain + tx_hash'). It indicates when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context implies distinct use cases.

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