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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains that 'rawWithDetails' provides sanitized event logs and decoded contract function calls, and it warns that provider details should be treated as untrusted evidence. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the most important usage detail (rawWithDetails) and a trust caveat. It is compact and every clause earns its place, though the sentence is slightly dense.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the main behavioral nuance (rawWithDetails) and the trust caveat. It is slightly incomplete on when to use this vs. sibling tools, but for a read-only single-transaction explainer with an output schema, it is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explains the 'include' parameter's 'rawWithDetails' value and the 'transactionId' concept, but it does not explain workspaceRef, portfolioRef, or the 'raw' value. The description adds some value but leaves several parameters undocumented.

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 ('Explain') and resource ('one accounting transaction') and lists the key components it returns: classification, journal entry, cost-basis links, and grouped source transactions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_journal_entry or get_raw_transaction, but the combination of components makes the purpose reasonably clear.

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?

The description implies usage for explaining a single transaction and mentions when to use 'rawWithDetails' for sanitized event logs and decoded contract calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_journal_entry, get_raw_transaction, or list_portfolio_transactions, nor does it state exclusions.

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