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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses return fields (status, gasUsed, contractAddress, event logs) and explains status values (0x1=success, 0x0=fail). This adds useful behavioral context that is not in the schema or 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose and key return information without unnecessary detail.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the action and key return fields. It does not mention edge cases like missing receipts, but the annotations and schema provide adequate context for a straightforward read-only lookup.

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 already provides thorough documentation for the 'hash' parameter (32 bytes, hex-encoded with 0x prefix). The description only says 'by hash', adding no additional semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate beyond it.

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 receipt by hash on Mezo testnet.' It identifies the specific verb, resource, and network, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mezo_get_transaction or eth_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 gives clear context ('on Mezo testnet') but does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of alternatives or provide exclusions. It implies usage for fetching receipts on Mezo testnet but lacks explicit guidance about alternatives like mainnet equivalents.

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