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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's additional context about returned fields (status encoding, contractAddress only for deployments) is useful but doesn't disclose potential edge cases like null receipts for pending transactions. The description adds moderate value beyond 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the action and resource, followed by a compact list of key return fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool, the description plus schema covers the essential purpose, return values, and parameter format. It doesn't mention caveats like pending transactions or null results, but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity and the annotations' safety profile.

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 schema fully describes the hash parameter with pattern and description, providing complete coverage. The tool description says 'by hash' but doesn't add new semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool gets a transaction receipt by hash on Ethereum mainnet, listing specific receipt fields like status, gasUsed, contractAddress, and event logs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as eth_get_transaction, which returns transaction details rather than receipt-specific information.

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 when receipt data is needed (e.g., transaction status, gas used, logs). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like eth_get_transaction or eth_get_logs, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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