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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful return-content context (stages, planned vs completed outbound transactions), but says nothing about freshness, whether the status is final, or error behavior for unknown hashes. Note idempotentHint=false sits oddly with a read-only status lookup, though the description does not contradict it.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the returned content before the usage hint. "Comprehensive" is mild filler but the enumeration that follows earns its space. Nothing is redundant enough to penalize further.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does list the three main components (stages, planned outbound, completed outbound). It falls short of explaining what the stages are or how a caller distinguishes terminal from in-progress states, which would be valuable for a status-tracking tool.

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% for the single hash parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's only marginal addition is framing the hash as swap-related via "track swap progress"; it adds no format or constraint detail. 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?

The description names a specific verb (Returns) and resource (transaction status) and enumerates the three components returned: processing stages, planned outbound transactions, and completed outbound transactions. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like get_tx_stages and get_tx by emphasizing outbound/swap tracking, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Use this to track swap progress" gives an implied usage context, but there is no when-not guidance and no alternatives named despite close siblings (get_tx, get_tx_details, get_tx_stages, get_swap_details). The agent must infer which of these several transaction tools to pick.

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