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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying what is returned (transfer identity, amount, destination, arrival) and the supported chains. It lacks auth or rate-limit details, but the safety profile is already covered.

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 purpose and return information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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, so the description must explain return values; it does so clearly (transfer, amount, destination chain, arrival). Input format is covered by the schema. Complete for a read-only, single-input lookup 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 coverage is 100% for the single txHash parameter, which already documents its format (0x-prefixed, 66 chars). The description reinforces it as a source-chain tx hash but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (tracking) and resource (CCTP cross-chain transfer), and names the input (source-chain tx hash) and the outputs (transfer identity, amount, destination chain, arrival). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like explain_transaction, but the domain is clear enough for selection.

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?

Provides clear context: use with a source-chain tx hash to find transfer details. Notes the supported scope (Base → Ethereum and other CCTP chains). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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