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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what a caller gets back ('transaction body, auth info, and execution result'), which is real value since there is no output schema, but it omits failure behavior for an unknown hash and any response-size caveats.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. It could be marginally sharper by folding in the routing distinction, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the safety semantics, the description covers what is fetched and what comes back, which is the main gap left by the absent output schema. Only the not-found/error behavior is unaddressed.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'hash' fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or casing guidance beyond restating that lookup is by hash, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a transaction by hash') and identifies the source chain ('Cosmos SDK blockchain'), which partially separates it from get_cometbft_tx. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the crowded tx siblings (get_tx, get_tx_details, search_cosmos_txs), leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 phrase 'by hash' implies a lookup requires a hash, but there is no stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing among get_tx, get_cometbft_tx, get_tx_details, or search_cosmos_txs. In a sibling set this dense, that absence matters.

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