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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the nature of the filterable attributes, but nothing about pagination limits, result size, or query cost; with annotations carrying safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It could be tighterefficient but is well within bounds for a search tool.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description says nothing about the shape of returned transaction data or result-size expectations. Pagination is at least covered by the schema, and annotations cover safety, so the gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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 all four parameters (page, limit, events, order_by) are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description hints at what the 'events' filter can target (message type, sender, recipient), marginally enriching 'events' beyond the schema's single example, but adds no syntax or format detail.

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 (searches) and resource (transactions) with a clear mechanism (matching query events). It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling search_cometbft_tx or from single-tx tools like get_cosmos_tx, so it falls short of a 5.

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 lists capabilities (filtering by message type, sender, recipient) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_cosmos_tx, search_cometbft_tx, or get_tx. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving selection to inference.

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