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

Annotations already declare the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds high-value behavior the annotations cannot express: a miss means absent from *our* node only and is never proof of non-existence, plus the index boundary (hash index from block 26,170,371, receipts covering a rolling ~6 days). This preempts the most likely misinterpretation of a negative result.

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?

It is dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then when-to-use, when-not-to-use, return fields, and boundary caveats in that order. Every clause carries information, though the single-paragraph return enumeration makes it read as a wall of text rather than cleanly sign-posted sections.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return fields (found, status, block_number, from, to, value_eth, gas_used, fee_eth, confirmations, finalized, erc20_transfers[]) and covers the miss semantics and index-window boundaries. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents the '0x + 64 hex' format. The description only implies 'by hash' and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (check) and resource (Ethereum transaction by hash) and enumerates exactly what is reported: success/reverted status, gas used, fee paid, confirmations, finality, and decoded ERC-20 transfers. This clearly separates it from siblings like eth_get_block and eth_get_logs without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 states when to use it ('did this ETH or ERC-20 payment actually settle, is it irreversible, who paid whom and how much') and explicitly routes away when not to use it, naming both alternatives: eth_get_fee_rates for fee estimation and tron_get_transaction for Tron. Nothing is left to inference.

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