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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the returned fields (chain, addresses, coins, memo, observed heights) and framing the result as what 'THORChain saw', which signals an observational rather than authoritative record. It does not say what happens when the hash is unknown or unobserved, a meaningful gap for an open-world lookup.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the capability and its return contents come first, the alternative routing second. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it names an alternative for the common swap-checking case. It is slightly incomplete for a lookup tool in not addressing unknown/unobserved hashes and not differentiating from get_tx_status.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as 'The transaction hash (inbound or outbound)'. The description's 'inbound or outbound' phrasing merely restates the schema rather than adding format or normalization guidance, so the 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 the observed transaction for a hash') and enumerates the returned data: chain, addresses, coins, memo, observed heights. It distinguishes itself from get_swap_status but never mentions the closest sibling, get_tx_status, leaving an ambiguity an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule with a concrete user intent ('did my swap go through?' -> get_swap_status), which is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance that helps selection. It stops short of saying when NOT to use this tool, notably when get_tx_status would be the better pick.

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