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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by disclosing the output categories and, importantly, that the tool is pay-per-call at $0.01 USDC. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error scenarios, but the listed outputs strongly imply a read-only 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 compact sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's output and input; the second adds the critical cost detail. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main responsibilities: identifying the chain, the required input, the returned fields, and the cost. It is slightly light on explicit guidance about when to favor this over related Base/Polygon tools, but it is otherwise sufficiently complete for a simple lookup.

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?

The only parameter, hash, is already fully described in the schema as 'Transaction hash (0x...)', so schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats 'base tx hash' but adds no additional format, constraints, or usage detail beyond the schema, yielding the baseline score.

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 clearly identifies the resource and the returned information: status, block, gas, and transfer summary for a Base transaction hash. This makes its purpose immediately identifiable and distinguishes it from siblings like base_balance or polygon_tx by chain and resource type.

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 implies usage: pass a Base transaction hash when you need its status/block/gas/transfer summary. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives such as base_block, base_gas, or polygon_tx, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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