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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the returned information and implies a read-only lookup, which is useful context beyond the schema, but it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or permissions explicitly.

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 compact and front-loads the tool's output, then gives when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. Every sentence is purposeful, with no wasted wording.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, when to call it, and which alternative to use for Monero. The schema handles the input constraint.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents that txid is a 64-character hex Bitcoin transaction hash. The description reinforces this but adds no additional parameter syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: query a Bitcoin transaction by txid, returning confirmation status, block height, confirmations, size, and input/output summaries. It clearly distinguishes this tool from related siblings such as btc_block_summary and xmr_tx_lookup.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition (user provides a 64-character hex BTC txid and asks whether it is confirmed or in which block) and an explicit when-not-to-use alternative (Monero transactions should use xmr_tx_lookup).

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