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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds meaningful context by specifying transactions are 'indexed native' and that the same min-value/time filters apply as the relation graph. No contradiction; pagination/ordering is not mentioned, but the output schema can cover return details.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the core action, resource, and filter context without any filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 tool's moderate complexity (7 params, output schema present) and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what is returned, the edge scope, and the filter reuse. The output schema handles result shape, so no additional return-value explanation is needed.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all seven parameters. The description only generically references the minimum-value and time filters, which aligns with existing schema fields but adds no new syntax or format information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource ('indexed native XGR transactions represented by one directed graph edge'), clearly distinguishing this from graph-level tools like get_address_relation_graph or broad transaction searches like search_transactions.

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?

Using 'represented by one directed graph edge' implies the caller needs a source/target edge and wants the underlying transactions, and the filter context ('same ... filters used by the relation graph') provides clear situational guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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