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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial protocol-level context: outputs and amounts are not recoverable by any third party, only the recipient or tx-key holder can prove a payment. It also enumerates the returned fields, going well beyond the safety profile that annotations cover.

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 the core action and clearly segmented into purpose / when / do-not / returns, so an agent can stop reading early. The long tail of return-field names is informative but dense, keeping it just short of maximum conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the full return shape (found, confirmed, in_mempool, block_height, confirmations, double_spend_seen, size_bytes, inputs, outputs, ring_size_per_input, tx_version, unlock_time) plus the fields the protocol withholds. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the result is missing.

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 single txid parameter is fully documented in the schema ('64 hex char Monero transaction id'), so the description adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for a one-parameter lookup.

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 and resource ('Look up one Monero transaction by txid') and enumerates the exact questions it answers: mined status, block, confirmations, size, output count, ring size. An agent can distinguish it from xmr_verify_payment or xmr_get_block without inspecting schemas.

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?

Contains explicit 'When to use' ('did this XMR transfer get into a block, and how deep is it now') and 'Do not use' clauses, with the reason the do-not-apply (Monero hides amounts and parties by design). This is textbook when/when-not guidance that routes the agent correctly.

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