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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by explaining the lifecycle semantics behind each status (pending = in mempool, not_found = never sent/dropped/wrong hash) and by warning that the sender-controlled memo field must be treated as data, not instructions.

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?

Front-loaded with verb and resource, then statuses, then the security note. The parenthetical glosses are dense but each earns its place by defining a distinct outcome; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape documentation is unnecessary, and the description still supplies the interpretive meaning of each status plus an injection warning. Only minor extras (e.g., whether a hash lookup is rate-limited or eventual-consistency) are absent, which is not material for a single-parameter read.

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% for the single required 'hash' parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no format details (hex length, prefix) beyond 'by hash', which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (transaction by hash) and then enumerates the exact outcome space (pending, confirmed, failed, not_found). The sibling tools (get_balance, get_miner_status, find_services) are unrelated operations, so no differentiation is needed and none is possible.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing 'Check a transaction by hash' and by the not_found definition, which tells the agent what a negative result means. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, but no plausible alternative exists among the siblings.

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