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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the output shape (full transaction object including from, to, value, input data, and status), but it does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or confirmation requirements beyond these fields. This is consistent with annotations and provides moderate extra context.

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 function and then lists key return fields. Every word is informative and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 is simple with one parameter and minimal annotations, and the description outlines what to expect in the response. It does not explain potential error conditions or whether the hash must be for a Mezo transaction specifically, but for a straightforward read-only lookup the given context is largely sufficient. The absence of an output schema makes the listed return fields valuable.

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 documents the single parameter 'hash' with a description and pattern, providing 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Get transaction details by hash on Mezo.' It specifies the resource (transactions) and action (get), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the Mezo chain and listing the returned fields (from, to, value, input data, status). This differentiates it from similar tools like btc_get_transaction and mezo_get_transaction_receipt.

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 when to use the tool (when you need transaction details by hash), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that transaction receipts are handled by a separate tool, nor does it clarify if this is only for Mezo mainnet vs. testnet. The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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