evm_wait_for_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safe read-only and external dependency aspects. The description adds that it waits for confirmations and returns a receipt, but doesn't disclose potential delays, timeouts, or failure behavior, which is a common concern for waiting operations.

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 one concise sentence that fully captures the tool's essence without fluff. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and strong schema/annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It states the core behavior and outcome (returning the confirmed receipt), but does not detail edge cases like timeout or transaction failure.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., defaults for confirmations, chainId behavior).

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 uses a specific verb ('wait for') and resource ('transaction confirmations') and states the outcome ('return the confirmed receipt'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like evm_get_transaction_receipt by emphasizing the waiting behavior.

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?

It implies usage: you call this when you need to wait for confirmations and get a receipt. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use evm_get_transaction_receipt instead.

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