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 adds that proofs are optional and what query forms are accepted, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or error handling for malformed queries.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the query-syntax detail earns its place. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 does note the return shape ('matching transactions with optional proofs'), which is helpful. But for a search tool with a same-named sibling, the missing disambiguation and lack of pagination guidance leave real gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents page, prove, query, order_by, and per_page with defaults. The description reinforces query syntax and mentions composite queries, adding modest value over the schema's single example, but adds nothing for the other four parameters.

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 ('Searches for transactions matching the query') plus the supported query syntax, so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named sibling search_cosmos_txs, leaving the agent to guess which search tool applies.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing between this and the sibling search_cosmos_txs (or the get_cometbft_tx/get_cosmos_tx getters). The query examples hint at capability but do not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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