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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return payload (status, block/slot, from/to, gas), the auto-detection behavior ('auto-detects chain by hash shape'), and a pricing signal ($0.005 USDC). It omits failure modes for unsupported chains or missing hashes, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads resource, scope, and return contents, with auto-detection and price trailing. No filler, though the pricing clause is the least essential element for correct invocation.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is fetched, which chains are supported, and how the chain is resolved. Missing only edge-case/error behavior, which is minor for this complexity level.

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 0% (bare 'hash' string), so the description must compensate. It clarifies the argument is a transaction hash and that chain is inferred from hash shape rather than passed in, which meaningfully constrains how the caller supplies the single parameter.

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 names a specific resource (normalized transaction receipt) and scope (a transaction hash on Solana, Base or Polygon), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It partially differentiates from chain-specific siblings by stating multichain coverage, though it never names tx/solana_tx/tx_history explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: provide a hash and the tool auto-detects the chain, so no chain argument is needed. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative among the many tx-related siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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