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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the operationally important pay-per-call fee and names the return categories (status, block, gas, transfer summary), which strongly implies a read-only transaction lookup. It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but the disclosed cost and output scope are meaningful.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. Every element—output summary, chain targeting, and cost—adds value, and the main content is front-loaded.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema. The description tells the agent what it will receive and warns about cost, which is enough for correct invocation. It does not describe invalid-hash handling or the exact result format, but the status field partially covers failure behavior.

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 described in the input schema as 'Transaction hash (0x...)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter details, so the schema carries the full burden; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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—a Polygon transaction hash—and enumerates the output: status (success/reverted), block, gas, and transfer summary. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Returns,' but the meaning is unambiguous and the chain-specific naming distinguishes it from siblings like base_tx.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for Polygon chain lookups relative to base_* siblings, mention use cases, or state exclusions. The pay-per-call note is a cost warning, not usage direction.

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