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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds return-field details (from, to, value, input data, status) but does not disclose edge-case behaviors like not-found handling or transaction state nuances.

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?

One sentence with front-loaded purpose, followed by return-value details. Every word earns its place—no fluff or redundancy.

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 low complexity (one parameter), annotations for read-only, and no output schema, the description provides enough context by listing key return fields. It doesn't cover error cases, but for a simple lookup tool this is acceptable.

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 'hash' parameter is fully described in the schema with type, pattern, and explanation. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so baseline 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'transaction details by hash', and specifies the network 'Mezo testnet'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other networks (btc, eth, mezo mainnet).

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 network context 'on Mezo testnet' is clear, but there is no explicit mention of when to use this versus alternatives like mezo_get_transaction_receipt. The context is unambiguous enough for a simple getter.

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